Evolution is not Abiogenesis

quote:

---

Is prebiotic evolution evolution?

---

No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.

If lifeless self-replicating chemicals coalesced together to form a living organism. That is a spectacular example of evolution.

I would consider that abiogenesis.When those new life forms began to adapt to their environment and change through mutation and natural selection, I would consider that evolution.

Does that mean that an intelligent agent is a valid alternative theory for the origin of life?Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Logically, they can't be totally ruled out. (Although the alien hypothesis just pushes the problem further away by not providing an ultimate cause)

I've had a message from Buzsaw in which he asked me to post the following If it's at all possible to allow Buz to post in this particular thread, I think we may have a productive discussion, maybe even a learning experience for all.

I have no problem allowing Buz in here.

It would help if an explanation of why the alternatives are not abiogenesis was included. I'm sorely pressed for time just now so can't do it. If it hasn't been done before I get back, I'll do it then, but we're talking about 10 hours.

-Bold mineFor sake of argument and discussion I can agree with Buz concerning this scenerio.For the record I do not believe evolution happened. I believe the literal interpretation of Genesis and believe abiogenesis and evolution should not be seperated.

Yes, but can you try to explain why you think that?Particuarly if you believe, like Buzz now says, that abiogenesis is not evolutionThey appear to be two logically incompatible statements.

I don't think they SHOULD be different. I think ORIGINS should be incorporated with the theory. It's not because there wouldn't be one if it was.My point is regardless of evolution being true or not it avoids one of the most important questions. How did it all start? What evolved from what? Could it have evolved or was it already created like the Bible says?Origins is important. It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory. It is because it hampers the TOE.

Whether they should or shouldn't be different is utterly irrelevant - surely you can see that?They ARE different; that's all that matters.I think beer should be free; sadly it isn't and no amount of wishing it was different is going to change that fact of life.You seem to have accepted that they are different but wish they weren't; that's a very human feeling but it's not a rational argument.

Oh, ok. Sorry to have disturbed you guys. Cheerio.

I fell for what you said in your OP, my bad.Are we just gonna go with your last comment? That "they ARE different, that's all that matters?"It's a far cry form you original proposal.

But they just are. But evolution would remain unchanged however life first arose. It doesn't answer that question. But that isn't the same as avoiding it. The question you want an answer to is being actively researched as we write. We don't really know. Yet. All present and past life evolved from this first instance of life. That is the theory of common ancestry in a nutshell. We know life evolved. What we don't know is how it originated. It is important in the wider sense. But it doesn't really affect the ToE too much. Whether sparked into existence by a divine being or the natural consequence of chemical soupit makes no real difference to the evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification. It isn't being swept anywhere. Origins of life is a topic of active research. How? Be specific.