Evolution is not Abiogenesis

Hi, Marc. First, I will agree that you don't technically have to identify the Designer. However, you do have to give some sort of explanation as to how he/she/it/they did the Designing, and how we could clearly and legitimately distinguish things that emerge from this Design process from things that emerge through non-Design processes. The work in this area so far has been... unconvincing, to say the least.Second, as you have undoubtedly been told by evolutionists before, there are two separate phenomena representing two separate phases of the history of life: the origin of life, and its subsequent development/modification.Obviously, no hypothesis should be required to explain both phases, since it is perfectly valid to propose that the two phases of life's history functioned on different principles.To that end, evolutionists don't demand that ID/creation models explain everything as a result of a Design process. For example, we don't expect you to explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria as the result of de novo creations of the Designer: we are perfectly happy to let you explain them through mutations and natural selection, if you want.In contrast, you are requiring our model to explain both phenomena with one hypothesis, so much so that you refuse to accept our explanation for one phenomenon unless we have a similar explanation for the other phenomenon. This seems like a double standard to me.Edited by Blue Jay, : cosmetics

Hi, Marc. Because explanation is the whole point of science.Look, if I saw a prehistoric spearhead, I would take it to an archaeologist and ask him where it came from. The archaeologist would tell me that a prehistoric human made it.Then, I would ask him how the prehistoric human made it. The archaeologist might then talk about a certain technique for flaking stone to make spearheads. If I asked, he would probably be able to point me to some evidence that shows why this is the way he thinks the prehistoric human used that technique.Archaeologists have legitimate scientific theories about intelligent design. You should model yours on theirs. I'm making an honest effort to try to figure out what you're trying to say here, but I think I've so far failed. If you're just saying that we don't distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution, I am first obligated to scold you for simply repeated your unelaborated original point. Then, I present to you the opinions of people here that seem to disagree with you, and place the ball back in your court. Taq is arguing that, if evolution and abiogenesis are so closely interrelated that the lack of evidence for one can cast doubt on the other, then it's only fair that the presence of evidence for one supports the other.Don't feel bad, though: lots of people have trouble keeping up with Taq. Marc, are you even reading what I'm saying? How on Earth is this helping your case?You just confirmed that you are okay with IDists using two very different theories to explain these two things, but refuse to allow our theories to be separate. Another double standard! Let me see if I understand this. You're saying that, because evolutionists tend to accept common descent, that evolution and abiogenesis must be the same thing?

Hi, Marc. Marc, you keep conflating all kinds of things. Evolution, abiogenesis, atheism and common descent are all different things.Abiogenesis is a hypothetical process by which a living organism emerged from non-living precursors.Common descent is the idea that all modern organisms are descended from a single organism that emerged through abiogenesis.Evolution is the theory that explains how organisms descended from prior organisms become different from their ancestors.Atheism is the belief that God had nothing to do with any of the preceding things, because He doesn't exist.

Hi, Rahvin Reductionism is not always the answer. Life isn't just a substrate: it's also the processes that act on that substrate the shape it into what it is.There's a seminal paper in ecology that might shed some light on this little side discussion:Levin SA. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943-1967.

quote:

---

Abstract.
It is argued that the problem of pattern and scale is the central problem in ecology, unifying population biology and ecosystems science, and marrying basic and applied ecology. Applied challenges, such as the prediction of the ecological causes and consequences of global climate change, require the interfacing of phenomena that occur on very different scales of space, time, and ecological organization. Furthermore, there is no single natural scale at which ecological phenomena should be studied; systems generally show characteristic variability on a range of spatial, temporal, and organizational scales. The observer imposes a perceptual bias, a filter through which the system is viewed. This has fundamental evolutionary significance, since every organism is an "observer" of the environment, and life history adaptations such as dispersal and dormancy alter the perceptual scales of the species, and the observed variability. It likewise has fundamental significance for our own study of ecological systems, since the patterns that are unique to any range of scales will have unique causes and biological consequences. The key to prediction and understanding lies in the elucidation of mechanisms underlying observed patterns. Typically, these mechanisms operate at different scales than those on which the patterns are observed; in some cases, the patterns must be understood as emerging from the collective behaviors of large ensembles of smaller scale units. In other cases, the pattern is imposed by larger scale constraints. Examination of such phenomena requires the study of how pattern and variability change with the scale of description, and the development of laws for simplification, aggregation, and scaling. Examples are given from the marine and terrestrial literatures.

---

The punch line is that life is organized at a number of different scales (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, ecosystem, etc.), and things that happen at each scale are partially driven by mechanisms that operate uniquely at that scale; side effects of these mechanisms reverberate up and down the scale, so that neither small-scale (i.e. chemical) nor large-scale (i.e. ecological) viewpoints tell the whole story.It could be argued that chemical processes are what drive ecological processes: for example, lions run fast because the chemistry of the muscles and bones is suitable for fast running. But, it could just as plausibly be argued that the need to run fast (ecological scale) drove the chemistry of the bones and muscles to allow fast running over evolutionary time.The whole point of natural selection is that life results from more than just chemical reactions: it results from the complex action of abstract imperatives (demographics, social behaviors, etc.) on a chemical substrate. So, I could say that, at the end of the day, we are what those imperatives forced our chemistry to become.