Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

But Evolution is STILL not abiogenesis.Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.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.The Theory of Evolution has shown how the diversity of life we see can be explained.We are still very early in developing a similar understanding of Abiogenesis. Hopefully in less than the hundred and fifty years since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species we will have as detailed an understanding of abiogenesis.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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?

Do we still have some geologists to help?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The only linkage is that things can only evolve after they exist. We can say abiogenesis happened because there is life here. It really is that simple.No one has said "how" it happened yet. Understand the difference between the fact that abiogenesis happened and a Theory of Abiogenesis.We are finding evidence of how life can come from non-life. As I said, we are still early in developing a Theory of Abiogenesis, but way further along than we were even 25 years ago.I have little doubt that while I am still alive we will create life.If you want someone to take Special Creation seriously then you need to do the same things, develop theories of exactly how the god or designer or magician turned mud figures into living things, theories just like what is being done in laboratories by scientists today.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

In this analogy:1) Abiogenesis=Birth2) Evolution=Life after birth.Now we can assume that every living human went through a birth event. Then they had a life after that birth. Yes, the birth and the life after are explicitly connected events/processes.Now, do we need to know anything about the details of the birth event, to be able to study and understand much of the later life? No.For that matter, do we need to know anything about the first half of the lifespan, in order to be able to study and understand much of the later half of the lifespan? Again, no.So, yes the parts are connected and related, but you don't need to know and understand everything to be able to know and understand at least some of the parts.Or something like that.Moose

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.

That's a strange comment. Evolutionists are very clear, over and over again, that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. That's another strange comment. Creationists themselves believe in abiogenesis, though they insist it occurred as divine intervention rather than as a natural process.Most evolutionists will also consider panspermia as an alternative source of life on earth.

It can't be because there are a lot of creationists who are too ignorant to recognize the difference and too arrogant to admit it?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

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

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This just shows that religion impairs one's ability to think clearly.Even in this thread, we see that no amount of explanation brings any improvement. It's rather like trying to teach someone who has lost the use of their limbs to high jump.

Hi Jar,Roxrkool is still with us (not often but probably enough)That leaves time for digestion.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

We know abiogenesis happened because we see evidence of life all around us.We see no evidence of god, though.

If you had argued that disproving the earth and all life were created in 6 days does not disprove that different languages came as an act of divine will...I'm sure you'd get some supporters.Sure - undermining the supernatural origins of life, might undermine the credibility of the source that also suggests a supernatural origin of languages...and if you disprove the natural origins of life by demonstrating its impossibility, that might lower your confidence in other natural explanations...but it doesn't disprove other natural explanations.

He said it elsewhere in the Origins too:

quote:

---

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one"

---

Darwin even referenced a Creator in some editions...

quote:

---

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 by the Creator.

---

From the second edition.