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.
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.
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
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.
I wonder who Darwin thought breathed that life into that primordial form?
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.
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.
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
yes, yet the two are still closely linked just as you have shown them to be.
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
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 think the quotes and arguments you've given only show that anyone interested in evolution would also have a keen interest in abiogenesis, as would anyone devoted to special creation. Evolutionary theory glaringly omits any treatment of the subject of abiogensis.
you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
but 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.
Assuming that by "abiogenesis" you mean the idea that the first life was produced by natural causes rather than by God doing magic --- do you really suppose that the single concession that the first proto-organism was produced by God-magic two billion years ago and that everything else evolved from it would satisfy your average creationist?
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.
Dr Adequate writes:
Let me ask you this. Will you be the first? You say that people reject evolution because it is tied to abiogenesis.
ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.