Getting back to the original topic in time for closing ...
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, ...
Also, if one supports an atheistic view of evolution (Primordial soup, single-celled organisms, slight successive variation, without a God, etc etc), is it given that they also support the Big Bang?
I trust we have sorted out as best as possible the differences between cosmology (including the big bang theory), abiogenesis and evolution, and their relation to atheism, theism and the pursuit of a true representation of reality. Some people may not take these differences to heart, being under some delusion or other, but their disaffection will not alter the course of reality.
The Big Bang may or may not have been the erstwhile beginning of our universe, however it's main period of expansion was long over before the solar system was formed. Whether it is true or whether an infinite existing universe is true, the formation of the solar system, and of the planets would not be affected in their progress. To put a fine point on it, the Big Bang can be falsified by new evidence and cosmologists turned to a new theory, yet the science of abiogenesis and evolution will be totally unaffected.
In the science of abiogenesis we have several theories for how life started on this one planet -- the total sample we are aware to date of one where life exists -- but we have no direct evidence for the period when the change from lifeless to life holding occurred. The oldest known sample of sedimentary rock yields fossils of life that is remarkably similar to the cyanobacteria that exists today. All older rock has been either metamorphosed or subducted out of sight ... or waits to be uncovered. The process of metamorphosis destroys such delicate fossils as the first forms of life would likely have if they occurred naturally, or whether they were planted somehow. The only rational answer at this point is that we don't know how life began on this earth, but we also know life did begin on earth: the planet was formed from stellar debris and the most we have detected in space are prebiotic compounds, so at some point there was a transition from prebiotic to biotic. This fact is unaffected by the validity of the big bang theory of cosmology.
We can study possibilities for a natural beginning, theorize on possibilities, and we may even be able to reproduce some possibilities soon, but at this point we just don't know. Whether such formation of life is true or whether life was planted is true, the evolution of life on earth would not be affected in its progress. Again, to put a fine point on it, all current theories of abiogenesis can all be falsified by new evidence and scientists turned to entirely new theories, yet the science of evolution will be totally unaffected.
When we turn to the study of evolution we see that there is little doubt in a rational view that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will occur: hereditary traits do change in all species from one generation to the next. There may be some disagreement on the various mechanisms involved and the degree they operate from time to time, and there may be some disagreement that this degree of change from generation to generation can account for the diversity of life as we know it -- both from the variety living today, from historical records and from fossil records -- but the fact remains that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will occur, and this fact is unaffected by the validity of the big bang or the validity of abiogenesis.
Thus we see three branches of science that can be studied in an independent manner, each one unaffected by facts found or theories invalidated in each of the other branches. The only element that is critical is the pursuit of truth, unblemished by preconception, and of trying to determine the nature of reality.
And we see that science is not atheistic but necessarily agnostic: we cannot know that there is no god, no supernatural force or forces, but that we are unable to study them, reproduce their effect as we, certainly, are not gods. All we can use are the laws of nature that are provided, whether they are provided by chance, inevitable in a universe like ours or the result of supernatural creation, it is only the effect and behavior of those natural laws that we can study with science. Whether there are supernatural truths or not is irrelevant to the study of nature and the process of behavior of everything from subatomic particles to black holes according to the laws of nature. This includes the cosmology of a big bang, the possibilities of abiogenesis and the facts and theories of evolution.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2