Evolution is not Abiogenesis

There have been at least 3 fora in the last month where it has been claimed that evolution isn't true because it doesn't incorporate how life started.I thought it might be useful to start a thread on how scientists explain the difference between the Theory of Evolution, the various ideas about how life started here on earth and why religious believers find it so hard to grasp what scientists think is a simple and obvious point.That point being that the ToE starts with life whilst abiogenesis is how life starts.Consequently, the ToE is agnostic to the cause of life and works independently of that cause.

Thread copied here from the Evolution is not Abiogenesis thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

It might be useful to use examples from other areas of science.For example, we understand how chemicals can react and produce new molecules. Most of us learned about this in high school. We have a very detailed and natural explanation for how chemicals change. However, we don't have a good theory that explains the ultimate origin of those chemicals. This theory would need to explain how our universe came about, and there really isn't a solid scientific theory that explains this.So does this mean that we need to throw out the theory that explains how chemicals react and change over time? According to creationists, we do need to throw it out because we lack a theory that explains the ultimate origin of matter.This is the problem with the creationist argument. It requires us to throw out the knowledge we do have because we do not have all possible knowledge. Not knowing the ultimate origin of matter means that we need to throw out ALL scientific theories, according to creationist logic. This includes atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, gravity, etc.As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one iota if we found that God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today. The theory of evolution no more depends on the ultimate origin of life than our understanding of chemical interactions depends on the ultimate origin of matter.

I suppose we'd better get this one on the table from the start because it's a deal breaker.Those that say that evolution is not true because it doesn't incorporate how life started MUST give a credible answer to this questionHow would the ToE be affected if a pair of replicating molecules got here by any of the different ways we can think of? Including:1. God did it
2. A meteor brought it
3. Aliens planted it
4. Alphabet primordial soup cooked it up
5. any other idea(It will be necessary for the creationist to put aside their belief that evolution isn't true and treat this as a puzzle in logic and reason.)Edited by Tangle, : Improvement suggested by RAZD

Hi Tangle, hope this takes off. Or any one of the above ... ? [/quibble] Which doesn't mean that you have life, just molecules, not a cell structure yet, not a breeding population ... [/quibble]If anyone wants to discuss where we are scientifically on the development of self replicating molecules see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).This would also be a good place to introduce what science says the ToE is ... feel free to borrow from Introduction to Evolution (which has not been promoted yet ).Enjoy.

I find this very interesting. I've yet to hear how the ToE would be affected by the different possibilities. Give the number of times we've recently asked this question, I'm surprised that no-one has had a stab at it.However, I note that this is in a Science forum so Buz won't be able to participate and he's the one that started the recent ball rolling.

Depending on how masochistic you guys are feeling, you could petition Percy to get Buz the right to post in perhaps just this one topic?

quote:

---

Depending on how masochistic you guys are feeling, you could petition Percy to get Buz the right to post in perhaps just this one topic?

---

Absolutely. This is one that really demands a full quota of creationists. Otherwise, we'll all just end up agreeing with each other in a rational discussion...

I think we already just saw the full range of buz's contribution in the "Ten Signs" thread. He's a stick in the mud and he's not coming out until he's fossilized.

There are times for seminars where discussion is free, but there is also a place for the lecture and tutorial where the student listens and takes notes.

Na, we all already knew that long ago. It's a) fun to publicly humiliate him and show the error of his beliefs and b) he gets/keeps discussions going, even if it's for all the wrong reasons. Circlejerks are most certainly NOT fun. Hell, he's been pestering Percy for a shot maybe this can be it (even though we all know it will end in a catostrophic-shitstorm-gish-gallop).

EvC is neither.

But it can be. It is a great place for those who actually do know to lecture and the rest of us simply read and learn.

Is prebiotic evolution evolution?

Let me ask you a question.Why do creationists insist that abiogenesis is a part of evolution?