Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 9:05 AM
33 online now:
Aussie, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (8 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,010 Year: 12,046/19,786 Month: 1,827/2,641 Week: 336/708 Day: 30/81 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 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

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 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

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 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

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 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 3125 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

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 140 (568018)
07-03-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
07-03-2010 10:14 PM


jar writes:

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.

jar writes:

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:42 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 07-04-2010 8:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 22 of 140 (568023)
07-03-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
07-03-2010 11:00 PM


nwr writes:

Both are still part of biology, and both are of interest to scientists. However, the distinction was recognized from the start.

I guess I am failing to understand why you think there is an issue here.

i dont have an issue with it

but 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 subjects

to 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 11:00 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 12:18 AM Peg has responded
 Message 24 by DrJones*, posted 07-04-2010 12:59 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 07-04-2010 1:26 AM Peg has responded
 Message 26 by Woodsy, posted 07-04-2010 7:08 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 8:59 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2010 2:39 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 140 (568200)
07-04-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by glowby
07-04-2010 4:01 PM


Re: intuitive linking
glowby writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by glowby, posted 07-04-2010 4:01 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 44 by glowby, posted 07-05-2010 3:26 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 3:34 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 07-05-2010 5:58 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:27 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 140 (568203)
07-04-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nwr
07-04-2010 12:18 AM


nwr writes:

That's another strange comment. Creationists themselves believe in abiogenesis, though they insist it occurred as divine intervention rather than as a natural process.

they are not really too similar. Creationists believe that the beginning of life was the 'creation' of living things in a fully developed form

everything from bacteria to dinosaurs to humans were created fully developed as opposed to gradually.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 12:18 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 10:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 140 (568205)
07-04-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluescat48
07-04-2010 1:26 AM


bluescat writes:

But that is the fault of the creationists, not the evolutionists. How can evolutionists be blamed for the ignorance of the creationists?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 07-04-2010 1:26 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 9:55 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:20 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 3:11 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 07-06-2010 2:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 41 of 140 (568208)
07-04-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
07-04-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Breathed
Modulous writes:

Darwin even referenced a Creator in some editions...

darwin was a confused man

he 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 9:08 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 10:02 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:16 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2010 1:29 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 07-05-2010 3:00 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 140 (568285)
07-05-2010 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2010 6:27 AM


Re: intuitive linking
DrAdequate writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 7:22 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Woodsy, posted 07-05-2010 7:33 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 53 by jar, posted 07-05-2010 9:40 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019