Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism

Contemporary Darwinism has quite enough difficulties, thank you, just trying to explain the descent (or if you wish, ascent) of man without adding to the impossible burden the greater impossibility of abiogenesis. For this reason, Darwin's apologists are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis. They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading. Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life. It is far - very far from that.To begin with, Miller created a very controlled experiment in a laboratory. Why didn't he experiment in a tidal pool, far more like the "primordial sea" we read about so often?
Miller was a chemist, and added laboratory reagents, and designed the experiment to avoid hydrolysis of amino acids by removing water. Obviously this is something almost impossible to do in the "primordial sea."Miller produced only a small quantity of one amino acid, and a few traces of others, all of them of course racemic mixtures, and not the optically active stereoisomer, of which our own proteins are made.Finally, the early atmosphere looked nothing like that in the Miller experiment. (Science magazine, 1995)Beyond these incredibly vexing (for Darwinists) problems lie even bigger hurdles, as is abundantly evident from the following quote:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and biochemistDarwin's seminal book was not called "The Origin of Species NOT COUNTING the First Critter." No, it was called "The Origin of Species." It had precisely one picture/drawing, viz. the "tree of life."Darwin's tree, of course, proposed a single ancestor for all living things. The silliness of attempting to cut the tree off at its base, just AFTER the first living cell is assembled is lost on Darwinists who can do little other than look down at their toes, and drag their shoes around on the floor and try to change the subject when asked about the "origin" of the very first species on earth. It IS, after all, the title of Darwin's book, isn't it.

I added the bolds.So, if the absolute origin of life was a miracle of God, biological evolution after that creation could not happen? A Godly origin of life and evolution there after are not compatable? To me, that's what you seem to be saying.Adminnemooseus

(IMO) a poor argument against biological evolution ("Darwinism").Will promote, but I would like to see an answer to message 2.Adminnemooseus

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Natural History includes abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution does not (how can a theory about population genetics apply when there are no populations or genes?) I think the Miller-Urey experiment was not misleading. It showed that amino acids can be created abiogenetically. Quite straightforward if you ask me. You either misunderstand your chem professors or they are wrong. It is not compelling evidence of abiogenesis of life, but compelling evidence that amino acids can be created abiogenetically. It was the first major experimenet which showed the basic building blocks of life created abiogenetically, that's why the fuss. Controlled experiments are science, uncontrolled experiments are discounted. Plenty of experiments have been done in the last 50 years, including environments which have a tidal pool type situation (with proteinoids and replicating cell like microspheres forming which create nucleic acids and polypeptides). Experiments have since been done using catalysts (such as clay substrates) which provide much better results than the primitive Miller experiment. Yup, much better experiments have been performed in the last 50 years which more accurately model the likely environments of early earth. Its a good quote. The origin of life does appear to be almost a miracle. To counter quote:

quote:

---

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

---

Exactly, it was about The Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. The actual title of Darwin's book is"On The Origins of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Reaces in the Struggle for Life"So it was written to discuss the origin of species by means of Natural Selection, not the Origin of all Life by means of abiogenetic biochemistry. It might even be a push to call the first life a 'species', but I'll let that slide.

Hello, Mirabile_Auditu, and welcome. Let me add to the Moose's point, if I may.

quote:

---

Contemporary Darwinism has quite enough difficulties, thank you, just trying to explain the descent (or if you wish, ascent) of man without adding to the impossible burden the greater impossibility of abiogenesis. For this reason, Darwin's apologists are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis. They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."

---

Abiogenesis is a very interesting subject, and is worth discussing for its own sake. However it is true that abiogenesis is separate subject than the (biological) theory of evolution.As an analogy, let us take my family history. We know that a certain branch of my family started in Ohio and ended in Oregon by way of Kansas. We have a pretty good idea that this occurred, and rough estimates of the dates, because we can locate birth and death certificates and marriage liscences.However, we do not know how my European ancestors first came to North America, or when. We have only some vague ideas, but nothing definite. But it doesn't matter in regards to the subject of the long journey that took my ancestors from Ohio to Kansas, and the on to Oregon. My family might have come to this country after the Civil War, they may have arrived during the British colonial period, or they may have miraculously appeared at some point. We do have definite evidence, though, that at some point they were in Ohio and then moved to Kansas and then to Oregon.In the same way, we have very good detailed evidence of the history of life on earth, and that all current species have evolved from a very few (perhaps only a single) ancestral species. We do not need to know how life originally arose (although that is, indeed, an interesting question). Life may have arisen from entirely naturalistic means on the surface of the earth; it may have come from interstellar space; it may have been miraculously created ex nihilo by a deity three and a half billion years ago. But it doesn't matter how it came about (as much as we'd like to know), because whatever the origin of life is, the evidence that evolution has occurred over the past several billion years is pretty much indisputable and unambiguous.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

You're right. That's why Darwinism hasn't. Further, which biologist is a pure Darwinist today? Evolutionary Biology is a big field that has grown significantly over the years. Calling evolutionary biologists Darwinists would be like calling modern physicians Galenists or something. Science doesn't deal in philosophy. It deals with impersism. No apologetics needed. Never was associated, never has been, never will be. If you are trying to imply some sort of evasion on the part of biologists, you have plenty of targets in the field of origins without having to pick on the evolution camp. It doesn't. Have you read the definition of evolution?

quote:

---

ev·o·lu·tion Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.

​

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

---

compare and contrast with the definition of abiogenesis:

quote:

---

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.

​

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

---

What makes the two similar? Come on, I read them both, they have nothing to do with each other. blah blah blah Haeckel blah blah blah Urey blah blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about blah blah blahSave it. We've heard it. Your wrong.Have you read any RECENT RESEARCH!!!!!Let me put it to you this way, 50 years ago, we barely had computers. 50 years ago we didn't have color tv. 50 years ago we were in the middle of the cold war.Things change! Don't you think things have MOVED ON/ PROGRESSED/ ADVANCED???? Try reading a National Geographic, or Scientific American for christ's sake! I love crap like this:"he made only a small quantity gufaw gufaw... psh..muh muh muh muh..."WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A SMALL QUANTITY! WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU TRIED THE EXPERIMENT?????You act as if the man wouldn't be right less a pig crawled out of his petri dish fully formed. What the hell did you expect? An entire ecosystem???????The fact that he got ANYTHING AT ALL is a freakin ACCOMPLISHEMENT WORTHY OF ACCLAIM!Are you gonna fault Lewie Pasture for not finding the cure for AIDS as well?"he only found the cure for a few bacterial disease gufaw gufaw... muh muh muh muh...." Right... Right right. uhuh... you know what Quote mining is? I have heard Crick speak live and in person and the man by no means disputes evolution or it's validity. It is also 150 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!!! Years old! Oh boy....So, what the hell you doing here then? You obviously have tapped into some greater knowledge that the vast majority of the scientific community is missing.Why don't you write a paper, submit it to a journal, and take down evolution singlehandedly. If you got a case, I'm sure you could find a scientist to help you with the technical aspects of the endeavor.I tell ya, there is nothing like taking down an established theory to make you rich and famous. Case in point, I read an article about this girl, she was in grade school I think, and her school science experiment got published in Nature.Apparently the experiment she devised was so ingenious that it revealed new scientific knowledge about climate change. Some university professors worked with her and her mom to create an article.Now if she can do it, what the hell are you waiting for?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-24-2005 03:31 PM

Well, at least a worm.Pretty funny, Yaro.

I think she was channeling dan ...

Hi Mirabile, Could you give me some examples from the scientific literature and not from talkboards?ThanksMickedit: just warning that a large number of "Darwinists" have debated the origin of life. After all, who else would debate it?This message has been edited by mick, 10-24-2005 10:38 PM

Off topic please to not respond here to this post.

Modulous wrote: In the same way, we have very good detailed evidence of the history of life on earth, and that all current species have evolved from a very few (perhaps only a single) ancestral species. We do not need to know how life originally arose (although that is, indeed, an interesting question). Life may have arisen from entirely naturalistic means on the surface of the earth; it may have come from interstellar space; it may have been miraculously created ex nihilo by a deity three and a half billion years ago. But it doesn't matter how it came about (as much as we'd like to know), because whatever the origin of life is, the evidence that evolution has occurred over the past several billion years is pretty much indisputable and unambiguous.
==========================Mirabile Auditu responds: IF "it doesn't matter how it came about," then WHY do "EVOLUTIONISTS" (it seems that some of your friends can't countenance being called "Darwinists" for some strange reason, though many of them have no problem hatefully attacking others with pejoratives far worse, e.g. "fundies," and bible thumpers," and "flat earthers" to name but a few) almost universally argue pure naturalistim, devoid of "religious myths"? Are they wrong, or are you? While it is a simple matter for "EVOLUTIONISTS" to mock and ridicule the abject stupidity of "fundies," whether or not they even have a religion, it is inexcusable for practitioners of what is supposed to be PURE and OBJECTIVE "SCIENCE" to be so inconsistent.
First religion is forbidden. Then you argue that it doesn't matter a whit how the first organisms arose."I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." - Physicist Steven Weinberg"We will become god." - Victor Stenger, "Not by Design", page 179Then there's this beauty by Richard Dawkins:"ANyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-24-2005 11:08 PM

Off topic please to not respond here to this post.

Shame on you, Mirabile!As an american, you should know that one's religous beliefs are purely a matter of individual conscience. Nobody is allowed to force a change in somebody's view of religion.But you guys in the US are lucky enough to have an idea called "freedom of speech", which means that I can perfectly legitimately say that your religious views are a load of hokum, silliness, backward thinking reminiscent of thought from the middle ages, harmful to the world, harmful to yourself, stupid and ignorant.It is perfectly legitimate for anybody to "mock and ridicule the abject stupidity of "fundies,"", whether they are EVOLUTIONISTS or otherwise.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 10-24-2005 10:53 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-24-2005 11:07 PM

Off topic please to not respond here to this post.

Well, yeah. That's a true statement.When you have something that is very obviously supported by a vast weight of objective evidence, people who continue to deny it must fit into one of those four categories:1) Ignorant - they simply are not aware of the evidence.
2) Stupid - they do not have the mental capacity to understand the evidence.
3) Insane - a debilitating mental disorder prevents them from coming to a rational conclusion about the evidence.
4) Wicked - they are being purposefully deceitful - they understand that evolution is the inescapable conclusion from the evidence, but refuse to admit it.There aren't any other possibilities. The idea that evolution is not supported by the evidence, or is not the inescapable, rational conclusion from the evidence, is intellectually untenable; to advance such an argument is inconsistent with reason and thus, the proponent must be one of the four categories described above.You may take personal offense to that, but simple, plainly-stated truths are often offensive to those with a desperate need to believe a lie.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-24-2005 11:07 PM

Please to not head off down the track taking about philosophical beliefs of individuals in either camp. I suggest "Is it science" is a place to discuss it all.

Okay, I respect your decision as administrator but want to make it clear I object.Mickadded in edit: Sorry, I just realised you said "Do not respond to this post". I won't respond againThis message has been edited by mick, 10-24-2005 11:15 PM