Abiogenesis: Why does it matter?

LiveFreeOrDie · #1 6th June 2002, 12:45 AM

Randman has claimed that the modern theory of evolution is also dependent upon the theory of abiogenesis (the creation of the first living creatures from non-living substances).

Is randman's claim true and if so, why?

ardipithecus · #2 6th June 2002, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Randman has claimed that the modern theory of evolution is also dependent upon the theory of abiogenesis (the creation of the first living creatures from non-living substances).

Is randman's claim true and if so, why?

No, evolutionary theory just assumes that life exists.

What is next, evolutionary theory is dependent on theoried of Earth's formation which are dependent on theories of the solar system's formation which are dependent on theories of Galaxy formation which are dependent on the Big Bang? This would be absurd. Each of these is a question in and of themselves. I have seen creationists claim the evolution is dependent on the Big Bang or that the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory. If you understand why the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, one can apply the same reasoning to abiogensis.

BTW, creationists believe in abiogenesis too. Anyone who belives that life has not continuously existed for an infinity of past time believes in abiogenesis. Of course there is difference of opionion on what abiogenesis was: a creation by God, a physical process, or both.

randman · #3 6th June 2002, 02:31 AM

You wanted to know why I reject evolution. Just because you disagree with my logic has little bearing on the truth. The fact is we are talking about a process. You choose to draw a line after the "first cell." I think it is an integral part of the posited process.

LiveFreeOrDie · #4 6th June 2002, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by randman
You wanted to know why I reject evolution. Just because you disagree with my logic has little bearing on the truth. The fact is we are talking about a process. You choose to draw a line after the "first cell." I think it is an integral part of the posited process.

Unfortunately what you think is wrong. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life forms developed. It only describes how those life forms diversified after they developed.

Think about it -- what difference does it make to evolutionary theory if the first self-replicators were created by God, engineered by extraterrestrials, or arose naturally through natural processes?

kern · #5 6th June 2002, 12:30 PM

And even abiogenesis can't disprove God as some people claim. All it does is seek a scientific explanation for the development of life. There's still no reason why God couldn't have used scientifically explainable processes to do it.

-Chris

tycho · #6 6th June 2002, 01:38 PM

Just because you disagree with my logic has little bearing on the truth.

Unless of course, your flawed logic is what led you to that truth. Fortunately, you never use logic when determining the Truth(TM).

You choose to draw a line after the "first cell." I think it is an integral part of the posited process.

Translation: I need to add to your theory so that I may poke holes in it.

npetreley · #7 6th June 2002, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Think about it -- what difference does it make to evolutionary theory if the first self-replicators were created by God, engineered by extraterrestrials, or arose naturally through natural processes?

What difference would it make? Perhaps none. You don't have to deal with abiogenesis to imagine the theory of evolution.

From a philosophical standpoint, however, I'd say that it makes a very big difference. If I were an evolutionist who just found out that abiogenesis is impossible, I'd be worried that I'm spending my entire life on a wild goose chase. Any type of being sophisticated enough to create a cell -- which is an enormously complex machine -- could just as easily create a human. So I'd start looking at the evidence in a whole new way from that point on.

By the way, assuming that the extraterrestrials were not supernatural, it doesn't resolve the problem of abiogenesis to say that life on earth was created by aliens. You still have to account for where the aliens came from. You don't have to account for where God came from because a supernatural being doesn't have to play by natural rules.

LiveFreeOrDie · #8 6th June 2002, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
What difference would it make? Perhaps none. You don't have to deal with abiogenesis to imagine the theory of evolution

Thank you for that concession.

From a philosophical standpoint, however, I'd say that it makes a very big difference. If I were an evolutionist who just found out that abiogenesis is impossible, I'd be worried that I'm spending my entire life on a wild goose chase.

Why? You just said yourself that evolution is independent of abiogenesis. The evidence that supports evolution supports it equally well whether life was created by God or whether it developed naturally.

Any type of being sophisticated enough to create a cell -- which is an enormously complex machine -- could just as easily create a human. So I'd start looking at the evidence in a whole new way from that point on.

Have at it, by all means. How do you suggest we look at the evidence?

You don't have to account for where God came from because a supernatural being doesn't have to play by natural rules.

No, but now you're stuck with the problem of proving that God exists.

RufusAtticus · #9 6th June 2002, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by randman
You wanted to know why I reject evolution. Just because you disagree with my logic has little bearing on the truth. The fact is we are talking about a process. You choose to draw a line after the "first cell." I think it is an integral part of the posited process.

If I rejected Christianity because it depends on divine revelation through Mohammad but there is no evidence for that in the N.T., would you consider my rejection to be reasonable?

What if I argued that you should reject it to for these reasons? Or questioned your intellegence for not seeing this "obvious problem" with Christianity?

npetreley · #10 6th June 2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Have at it, by all means. How do you suggest we look at the evidence?

I recommend that when you examine the evidence, you consider the possibility that things are what they seem. If something appears to be designed, consider the possibility that it WAS designed. If the fossil record appears to show that major species appeared suddenly, in stages, then consider the possibility that major species really DID appear suddenly, in stages.

If nothing else, it would save you a lot of time and effort trying to imagine ways to retrofit the theory of evolution to jibe with what you can plainly see.

No, but now you're stuck with the problem of proving that God exists.

No - YOU are stuck with that problem. I don't need to prove God exists. I know Him personally. I can't prove to you that He exists. All I can do is attempt to introduce you to Him.