Evolution is not Abiogenesis

It might be useful to use examples from other areas of science.For example, we understand how chemicals can react and produce new molecules. Most of us learned about this in high school. We have a very detailed and natural explanation for how chemicals change. However, we don't have a good theory that explains the ultimate origin of those chemicals. This theory would need to explain how our universe came about, and there really isn't a solid scientific theory that explains this.So does this mean that we need to throw out the theory that explains how chemicals react and change over time? According to creationists, we do need to throw it out because we lack a theory that explains the ultimate origin of matter.This is the problem with the creationist argument. It requires us to throw out the knowledge we do have because we do not have all possible knowledge. Not knowing the ultimate origin of matter means that we need to throw out ALL scientific theories, according to creationist logic. This includes atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, gravity, etc.As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one iota if we found that God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today. The theory of evolution no more depends on the ultimate origin of life than our understanding of chemical interactions depends on the ultimate origin of matter.

Why? So HOW should it be incorporated?I have asked a question multiple times now. Let's see if you actually answer it this time. We all understand that you do NOT accept either abiogenesis nor evolution, so none of your answers will be construed as support for either.Question: We find that God created the first RNA replicator on Earth, and from that RNA replicator all life evolved. How would the theory describing how life evolved from that RNA replicator be different than the theory we have now? You hold a really strange position. When we say they are different theories we are not saying that abiogenesis is not important. We are also saying that the Theory of Relativity is a separate theory from the Theory of Evolution, and guess what? We think the Theory of Relativity is very, very important. We all agree that abiogenesis is a very important area of research and a very important question that science really wants to answer. What we are also saying is how life changed and how life originated are DIFFERENT questions just as how gravity operates (i.e. Relativity) and how life changes are DIFFERENT questions.Additionally, would not knowing about Relaitivity somehow hamper our ability to determine how species change over time? No. In the same way, not knowing how life came about does not hamper our ability to determine how life changed once it was here. THEY ARE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. To stress this again, when we say different we do not mean that they are important and not important questions. They are DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, each being equally important for understanding what happened in the past and how the universe works. How? Please explain how not knowing how life originated hampers our ability to determine if humans and other apes share a common ancestor?

What is and is not life at this proposed point in history is pretty hazy anyway, but I think most definitions would require inheritance as part of any definition of life. No mechanism of descent, no life. I think we can all agree that we may not be able to apply specific mechanisms of mutation as seen in modern organisms. However, Darwin's original theory did not include these mechanisms either. All that Darwin required was heritable changes.The definition of life and the definition of evolution are tautological. That doesn't make it wrong, however. As SJ Gould pointed out one time, Algebra is also tautological, but it is still right. If we get down to it, our definition of life requires evolution. Something can not be considered alive unless it is capable of evolution. The only way around this that I can see is life that is incapable of producing mutations but is capable of reproduction. Such a species would quickly be outcompeted by life that does evolve, but the situation does exist.

Evolution doesn't require that assumption. All Evolution assumes is that life exists which seems to be a pretty good assumption. False. We also separate Evolution and Relativity as I explained in a previous post. We separate them because they are DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, not because we know more about Evolution than we know about Relativity. How life started and how life changed over time are two different processes so they are explained by two different theories. Even if we had as much evidence for abiogenesis as we have for evolution they would still be separate theories. It really is that simple.

I think you already do separate it (*explained below), but find it difficult to do so because it defeats your argument. Just give up on the argument that not knowing how life started somehow falsifies evolution. I think this would solve most of your problems.*Let's say that you are on a jury in a murder trial. A forensic scientist testifies that DNA found at the crime scene matches your client's DNA. You also learn that the fornesic scientist is also an atheist. During cross examination the defense attorney asks how the forensic scientist could use similarity in DNA when he never presented a theory for the origin of DNA itself. He tells the jury during closing statements that they should ignore the DNA evidence because the pre-requisite for DNA in the atheistic worldview is abiogenesis, and the atheist forensic scientist never explained how that could occur. He goes on to argue that abiogenesis is in fact impossible, therefore the DNA at the crime scene can not be used as evidence against his client. How effective do you think this argument would be? Wouldn't you be scratching your head wondering why a defense attorney would use such a crazy argument?Also, I doubt that you would accept observed evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of abiogenesis. If you will not accept evidence of evolution as evidence of abiogenesis then you are obviously already separating the two.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

When creationists claim that we should not separate abiogenesis and evolution what do you think they are referring to? Do you think that before we can understand the evolution of internet media that we need a model of how life originated? Do you think that before we can understand the evolution of Middle English to Modern English that we need to understand the origin of life through abiogenesis?

Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis: Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants (Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952)In this paper they do a great job of outline how bacterial mutation is random with respect to fitness and how these mutations are selected. This is a direct observation of abiogenesis (remember, you are not allowed to separate the two).Does this work for you? Are you going to argue against this and claim that we should separate evolution and abiogenesis?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

From Darwin's own work:"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--"Origin of Species", Charles DarwinDarwin himself spoke of the origin of life and evolution as two separate processes. There was a beginning of life, and then life evolved from there. Two separate things.Of course, we can always combine the two which actually works in our favor. Here is another paper on an observed abiogenesis event: Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitive to Viruse Resistance, (Luria and Delbruck, 1943)They clearly show that random mutations result in bacteriophage resistance which is selected for in an environment containing bacteriophage. This is another clearly observed abiogenesis event.

So I can't believe that my siblings and I share a common ancestor in our parents without first figuring out how life originated? Really?Do you even think these things through?

In ID, design and origin are one in the same. In evolution, they are not. According to evolution, the design we see in organisms today came about through mechanisms that acted on life that was already here. For ID, there was no life, and the design we see in life was put there at their origin.

For evolution, it doesn't matter how that first life came about. We are following the EVIDENCE which leads to the conclusion that all life shares a common ancestral pool of genes. That is simply what the evidence shows. Nothing in atheism requires a single common ancestral pool. In fact, someone could find a rare species in some deep ocean vent that does not share the same genetic features as all other life and it would fit just fine with atheism. It would also fit just fine with evolution in that evolution does not require a single common ancestor for all life.Another thing that you and other theists seem to be misunderstanding is that gods and designers can exist in the atheist worldview. All we need is evidence for these gods and designers, and then we will accept that they exist. Magical poofing as a mechansim for the first life is also allowed in the atheistic worldview, as long as there is evidence for it. We are following the evidence Marc, no more no less.

Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.

Then you are separating the theory of evolution from abiogenesis. I think this thread is done now. Even creationists understand that they are separate things.

Do you accept a single theory in science? Atomic theory? Germ theory? If you do, please tell us which theory this is and then explain how it is less atheistic than the theory of evolution. Then the theory of evolution is hardly your only problem. You are going up against all of Science now. Your God-of-the-Gaps will only shrink and shrink over time as we find more and more natural explanations.

The Discovery Institute has a multi-million dollar budget. They have plenty of money to fund ID research. Do they? Nope. Why? Because there is nothing to research. ID is a belief, not science. Therefore, there can be no scientific research. The DI knows this. Why haven't you figured this out?