My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
When we look at the ToE it is basically describing a mechanism to explain how the diversity of life we see around us came to be. That mechanism, put simply, being descent with modification through natural selection. But how do you apply this mechanism to abiogenesis?
When discussing abiogenesis there is no theory, not even a unified hypothesis, but instead a series of hypotheses describing potential steps. The discussion of these steps revolves around the chemicals that may have been present on the early earth, what their properties were (hydrophobic/hydrophilic, acid/base etc.), whether the environment was reducing or oxidising, and how these factors affect how the various chemicals combine, what reactions would be available. This is not the language of biology but of chemistry.
The separation of abiogenesis and evolution is not by choice. It is by necessity of the fact that for most of abiogenesis the prerequisites for evolution did not yet exist. There was no descent, no genetic material which to modify and the only selection would be the simple laws which govern chemical reactions. That's not to say there was no transitionary period, quite probably involving RNA. But only once we can elucidate the early stages of abiogenesis can we understand where the two fields intersect, which may even lead to a greater understanding of the early stages of evolution. It is very far from an attempt to sweep it under the carpet.
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
