Evolution and the origin of life

I may be prone to being over-exact, but even though I agree with the obvious--that evolution is true--I have one problem with the evolution side of the debate.I saw a post down below asking a creationist whether evolution addresses the origin of life. Well, evolution doesn't address the origin of life, but it is a rare evolutionist--unless he is an internet forum debater--who doesn't address the origin of life. Almost every book on evolution vs. creation I've ever read from the evolution side addresses biogenesis. I recently reread "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins and he addresses biogenesis (pretty powerfully, I might add) all over the place, devoting a whole chapter a theory of biogenesis based on the replication abilities of crystals.Anyway, I'm fine with saying that evolution doesn't address the origins of life, and that evolution would be true no matter how life originated (or how it's even defined), but I think we have to make that statement a whole lot more apologetically than we do, because evolutionist writers bring it up at least as much as creationist writers do.

quote:

---

Well, evolution doesn't address the origin of life, but it is a rare evolutionist--unless he is an internet forum debater--who doesn't address the origin of life

---

I see your point, and I wish there were more consensus in this matter. The standard answer is that evolution and abiogenesis are two different issues. Strictly speaking, that's true, but I don't know whether I'd say that the two aren't related.In a Darwinian framework, we postulate the origin of a phenomenon (a species, a biological structure) in the context of the variation-selection process that acted upon a prior species or structure. That is, there was no magic point where a species assumed the essence of its species-hood and became a separate species. There was no magic point where the bacterial flagellum stopped acting as a secretory system and assumed the essence of its flagellum-hood. This type of distinction is as creationist as special creation itself.It follows, then, that life itself arose through the same process of variation-selection acting on its ancestor system. The distinction between life and non-life even today is not as clear as the difference between a pound of quartz and a goat. The existence of viruses (strands of RNA with a protein coat) certainly inhabits some sort of Twilight Zone 'twixt life and non-life, and that should give us a clue that the emergence of life itself was not some sort of all-or-nothing transformation either.I'm glad you were as impressed with Dawkins's discussion of abiogenesis as I am. He is right to focus not only on the ancestor system that predated life, but on the ancestor variation-selection process by which life must have arisen from the ancestral system. That's the power of the Darwiniam mechanism, and it is as applicable to the origin of biotic forms as it is to the origin of new species and structures.------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-11-2003]

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Anyway, I'm fine with saying that evolution doesn't address the origins of life, and that evolution would be true no matter how life originated (or how it's even defined), but I think we have to make that statement a whole lot more apologetically than we do, because evolutionist writers bring it up at least as much as creationist writers do.

---

Why apologetically? The evidence strongly points in that direction. Not nearly as strongly as the theory of evolution, but that's where the information we have seems to be going. We can create right now self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules. If that isn't life, it's really close to it. We've found organics out in space, including cell membranes.Now while I personally feel that it will be an extremely difficult if not impossible to determine exactly how life started on this planet, assuming it was through natural means, because it was so long ago and most likely such a small reaction that we'd have absolutely no record of what went on. While we might be able to create life in a test tube, that's proof of concept, not proof of how it happened here on this planet. Add into the mix the possibility that life originated off planet and was transferred here, we may never know because the source where we might have any hope of finding remnants of the original reaction is nowhere to be found.When you add on the interconnectivity of science, it only makes sense that as you trace back evolution to its origins, you start picking up abiogenesis. There's a reason there is a field called "biochemistry." It deals with the chemical processes of biology and abiogenesis would land squarely in that field. Since evolution has a chemical component, it only makes sense that we would eventually start investigating where that chemical reaction originated.And since science can only look for natural processes, it only makes sense that we would look for a natural chemical process.The problem as I see it isn't that scientists need to be apologetic about how the evidence is gently pushing us toward abiogenesis. It is that creationists need to consider the possibility that god works in mysterious ways...possibly even natural ways. Consider the possibility that god exists but not in the way you thought. In the Bible, for example, it is never mentioned how god does anything, so who are we to tell god how to do anything? Why couldn't god have used physical processes? And done so subtly?Let's not forget...Genesis 2 says that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. Sounds like abiogenesis to me....------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I feel that when it comes to this argument, not much will get accomplished unelss you take into considerations a few things:
1. Do you believe in God? If you dont, then there is no point even debating this or reading the rest of this for that matter, becuase you will not except anything a Christian willl have to say.
2.Do you believe he can do anything? If no, then once again, its pointless to argue it. Personally, I find it rather hard to believe our whole existence as a human race came to be by just a freak chance, or happening. I dont believe in "the uncaused cause"- which states that somthing cant cause itself because before it became, it never existed. This is one of the main reasons I struggle with seeing how evolution could be possible.And if you have read your Bible, you could see all that (G)od does. You highlighted one thing from Gensis, by saying he created Adam. All throughout the BIble there are traces of the wonders and miracles that God has done.(plagues, parting the red sea, talking donkey, angels..etc)

On the contrary, many of us - myself included - accept many things that Christians have to say. What is rejected is the baseless literalist assertions that fly directly in the face of all available evidence, experience and observation of the natural world. There are far more Christians in the world who accept the findings of science, including the science of biology, than who reject them. Belief or lack of belief in the Christian God, other gods, or any other entity is irrelevant to the validity of scientific observation and results. Only those that attempt to shoehorn the repeatable, verifiable findings of science into a narrow, inherently anti-scientific worldview find themeselves justifiably marginalized. Your personal incredulity notwithstanding, no biologist proclaims that humans arose by a "freak chance". Historical contingency, natural selection, and descent with modification are the opposite of chance, especially natural selection. As to the "uncaused cause", you should perhaps read some Heisenberg, Bohr or Pauli on quantum acausality. However, your objection is a philosophical or metaphysical stance, and hence is beyond the scope of science - nor does it have anything to do with evolution. You might consider arguing with the cosmologists and physicists instead on that issue. Evolution is not only "possible", it's observed. Take it to the "Faith and Belief" or Biblical inerrancy forum if you think you have any evidence - other than the bible itself - that these events actually occurred.

Pringlesguy7 responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you believe in God?

---

Irrelevant. I'm not the one claiming god did anything.

quote:

---

Do you believe he can do anything?

---

See previous. I'm not the one claiming god did anything.

quote:

---

Personally, I find it rather hard to believe our whole existence as a human race came to be by just a freak chance, or happening.

---

Even though all the evidence indicates that it did?You are perfectly free to hope that there is something that we have overlooked, but you need to provide a reason why you think something is missing when all the evidence seems to indicate there is no problem.

quote:

---

I dont believe in "the uncaused cause"

---

Then were did god come from?If you agree that god can be an uncaused cause, why can't the universe also be like that?

quote:

---

This is one of the main reasons I struggle with seeing how evolution could be possible.

---

I suggest you take some coursework in quantum mechanics. You'll truly understand the line from Alice in Wonderland:"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

quote:

---

And if you have read your Bible, you could see all that (G)od does.

---

Incorrect. I have read the Bible and all I see is a bunch of words that supposedly claim what god does. Why should I believe the Bible over the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or any of the other great religious works in the world? They all have the same justification. What makes your book the right one?

quote:

---

All throughout the BIble there are traces of the wonders and miracles that God has done.

---

That doesn't mean god actually did it. It simply means some anonymous person thousands of years ago claims god did it.Why should I believe your anonymous authority over somebody else's anonymous authority?Even more importantly, why should I believe your anonymous authority when I have the actual fossils to look at right here, right now? The authors of Genesis weren't there 100,000 years ago. The fossils were. I think I'll believe them over everybody else.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!