Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

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. 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

yes, yet the two are still closely linked just as you have shown them to be. You have said that abiogenesis happened, it is a fact and yet nobody saw it happen, nor can anybody reproduce it and so nobody has ever found the evidence that it happened the way they say it happened.So why must one find evidence of God to believe he created life, yet they dont need to find evidence of abiogenesis to say that is how life got here?

i dont have an issue with itbut clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjectsto creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.

you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionbut then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'So this is the point im making....creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution. I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.I agree its a highly contentious issue and will remain as such.

they are not really too similar. Creationists believe that the beginning of life was the 'creation' of living things in a fully developed formeverything from bacteria to dinosaurs to humans were created fully developed as opposed to gradually.

what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.

darwin was a confused manhe didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.You only need to look at the letters he wrote to different associates to see that.

i've already stated earlier that i dont believe in the abiogenesis spoken about by people like dawkins.Living things may contain chemicals but chemicals do not produce life. ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.