Just Curious

[muaxiong]

In 10 out of the 10 encounters I have had with evolutionists (which indcludes TEs)- it is claimed that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. My question is, is the conclusion that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution based on scientific evidence (or rather the lack of evidence)? Also if you are a TE and since currently there is very little to no evidence that life self originated, did God create the first life or did it self organized despite evidence on the contrary?

 

[Mallon]

My view (and I think I probably speak for most TEs) is that it doesn't matter. Life may have come about via a miracle, or via natural self-organizing processes set in place by the Lord (I don't know which "evidence to the contrary" you are referring to). Either way, God gets the glory for being behind it all. We know that God can work through both miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) or through natural means (such as the conception of a child). Praise be to Him whatever the case!

 

[muaxiong]

Not to be nit picky but I don't think you've answered the question but rather dodged it. How about starting with why do you think it doesn't matter, if you are going to go that route?

Personally to say that God did it would be very unscientific, while to say that life originated on its own is just as unscientific because there is no empirical evidence that it can - other than unsubstantiated theories.

 

[random_guy]

Not to be nit picky but I don't think you've answered the question but rather dodged it. How about starting with why do you think it doesn't matter, if you are going to go that route?

Personally to say that God did it would be very unscientific, while to say that life originated on its own is just as unscientific because there is no empirical evidence that it can - other than unsubstantiated theories.

The problem is abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution. It's not a part of evolution because evolution deals with a specific problem, explaining the diversity of life. Whether or not God specially created all life 6000 years ago, or all life descented from a common ancestor, the Theory of Evolution applies.

It's similar to asking if the Theory of Gravity doesn't include origin of mass that causes gravity is due to the lack of evidence. It's not due to the lack of evidence, it's because the ToG doesn't deal with the origins of mass. I hope the reasoning makes sense. If not, I can try to clarify some more.

 

[muaxiong]

The problem is abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution. It's not a part of evolution because evolution deals with a specific problem, explaining the diversity of life.

I see - but let me see if I understand what you are concluding then. Are you saying that evolution is valid even without knowing anything about how the first life arose? So is abiogenesis simply assumed to have happened via the ipso facto fallacy of "it must have, because here we are" and that's all there is to it? That's not really a scientific reason, but hey what do I know.

Personally I think the problem is not that they are unrelated, it's that one lacks testable evidence for entirely while the other has to show for it only questionable evidence.

 

[random_guy]

I see - but let me see if I understand what you are concluding then. Are you saying that evolution is valid even without knowing anything about how the first life arose? So is abiogenesis simply assumed to have happened via the ipso facto fallacy of "it must have, because here we are" and that's all there is to it? That's not really a scientific reason, but hey what do I know.

Personally I think the problem is not that they are unrelated, it's that one lacks testable evidence for entirely while the other has to show for it only questionable evidence.

That's correct. It doesn't matter how life first came about. Remember the definition of evolution is that allele frequencies changing in a gene pool over generations. This will occur if life began 6000 years ago or billions of years ago. If life was created in kinds 6000 years ago, the only part of evolution that changes is the historical aspect. Instead of all life coming from a common ancestor, it would be that all life came from their common kind (some Creationists hold to this idea due to the Flood). However, evolution happens because of mutations and reproductive differentials. That's why abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution.

As for accepting abiogenesis as is, I think the reason is scientifically, abiogenesis had to have happened since we see life. Whether or not we will ever know the way it actually happened (God zapping dirt or protocells forming) doesn't affect that ability for scientists to put forth theories on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is murky for a specific reason, it's really hard stuff. Scientists are still working on creating a minimum genome bacteria, so trying to create life from scratch is doubly hard. However, none of this matters in relations to evolution since, again, evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.

If you still think they are related, tell me: Does atomic theory have to explain the origins of atoms in order to be a valid theory? Does germ theory have to explain the origins of germs to be a valid theory? Does gravity have to explain the origins of mass in order to be a valid theory? If your answer to all of them are no, then why does evolution, which deals with what happens after we have life, have to explain the origins of life?

EDIT: I didn't answer your last question. I'm unsure whether or not God specially created the first life or it came through chemistry. All I know is He had a hand in it all by setting up the rules of the game. However, I hope it's chemistry since I would like to also create life some day (Ph.D. in Bioengineering hopeful).

 

[Mallon]

Not to be nit picky but I don't think you've answered the question but rather dodged it.

I'm sorry if you feel that I avoided your question. To be honest, I really don't know what you meant by the first. It's like asking, "Do you believe apples are different from oranges based on the scientific evidence?" I believe abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated because they seek to answer completely different questions (i.e. "How did life arise?" vs. "How did diversity arise?").

How about starting with why do you think it doesn't matter, if you are going to go that route?

As a TE, how life came to be makes no difference because, as I explained above, God is capable of exercising his grace through both natural and supernatural processes. When it finally rains after a hot, dry spell, do you praise God for sending a miracle? No, because you know that rain is no miracle. It comes about via a natural combination of convection, adiabatic conditions, coalescence, etc. Yet we praise God for His grace nonetheless, knowing through faith that God makes it rain (e.g., Gen 2:5; Gen 7:4; Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1 Sam 12:17; 1 Kings 17:14; Job 5:10; Psalms 147:8; Jer 51:16; Eze 13:13). In light of this, why would we not give glory to God irrespective of how He created and diversified life?

That said, I'm not so naive as to think life cannot be created under natural conditions. Science has shown time and again that it is capable of answering even the most difficult questions. I refuse to box myself in by believing that life can only arise via miracle.

 

[steen]

In 10 out of the 10 encounters I have had with evolutionists (which indcludes TEs)- it is claimed that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Correct. They are two different fields in two different fields of science. There really isn't much to connect them.

My question is, is the conclusion that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution based on scientific evidence (or rather the lack of evidence)?

This question is meaningless. Those who study Evolution are biologists looking at existing life. those who study Abiogenesis are chemists (or organic chemists) and physicists.

They are simply in different fields of science and are not dependent on each other at all.

Also if you are a TE and since currently there is very little to no evidence that life self originated,

Well, there is some evidence, actually. Have you actually studied the evidence for Abiogenesis and the RNA-world?

did God create the first life or did it self organized

Both, it seems. Per Faith, God created the first life, and per Scientific Evidence, the process of Abiogenesis is studied and carry a lot of evidence, though it doesn't have all the steps down yet.

despite evidence on the contrary?

What "evidence" are you talking about? Are you one of those who insist on physical evidence for God?

Personally to say that God did it would be very unscientific,

And why shouldn't it be? Why should there be evidence for god's work? Are you saying that faith is worthless, that faith is invalid? Do you need PROOF of God to have faith?

while to say that life originated on its own is just as unscientific because there is no empirical evidence that it can

Your claim is false.

- other than unsubstantiated theories.

What do you mean? For one, if you are discussing science, the word "theory is the end product of the Scientific method, not the beginning. Secondly, there is quite a bit of literature in the field of chemistry regarding Abiogenesis, which seems to make your claim outright false.

I see - but let me see if I understand what you are concluding then. Are you saying that evolution is valid even without knowing anything about how the first life arose?

that is correct. That is what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is about. If you didn't know this, I suggest you learn something about Evolution so you at least KNOW what it is you are trying to criticize.

So is abiogenesis simply assumed to have happened via the ipso facto fallacy of "it must have, because here we are" and that's all there is to it?

Nope. Evolution makes no assumption of ANY kind about where life came from. It is utterly irrelevant to the Scientific Theory of Evolution as to where life came from. Whether it was outright creation, Abiogenesis or panspermia simply doesn't matter, as this is outside the Scientific Theory. I am sorry that you have such a need for these two different things to be sticking together, but it simply isn't so.

That's not really a scientific reason, but hey what do I know.

not very much about science, it would appear. Each Scientific Field has its own subject. To insist that Evolution accounts for Abiogenesis is as silly as insisting that the Scientific Theory of Light wave/particle properties somehow accounts for the structure of the Atom. These are unrelated issues regardless of how much you want to combine them.

Personally I think the problem is not that they are unrelated, it's that one lacks testable evidence for entirely while the other has to show for it only questionable evidence.

And you are fully in your right to personally believe this. It doesn't match reality, but that really is not my concern.

 

[shernren]

I would say that theoretically abiogenesis research could have made a difference to evolution research in some other possible reality. If, say, we lived on a planet where we carbon-based life-forms were coexisting with walking rocks based on silicon chemistry and gasbags which consume methane and excrete ammonia then yes, there would be a lot of interest in abiogenesis because there's no way a silicon life-form, us, and a methane-breather could have come from the same common ancestor. Each had to have had a separate abiogenesis event, and therefore to study the comparative difference between the three lines of life one would have to chart that difference from the very beginning. Then abiogenesis would be important.

But in the current observed biodiversity we see that practically all living organisms employ essentially the same metabolic chemistry (with individual variations, of course) and the same nucleic acid basis of information. We can therefore deduce certain things about what the common ancestor of life must have been like. Because we know that *all* life-forms must have descended from it, evolution can simply start from it and move on. Evolution can assume that the common ancestor was there to begin with. It doesn't matter whether that common ancestor was created by divine fiat, bubbled out of a primordial ooze, came to life on Neptune and got sent to earth on a meteor rock, or was created 5 billion years from now and sent back into the past by mad humans.

 

[Redneck Crow]

In 10 out of the 10 encounters I have had with evolutionists (which indcludes TEs)- it is claimed that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. My question is, is the conclusion that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution based on scientific evidence (or rather the lack of evidence)? Also if you are a TE and since currently there is very little to no evidence that life self originated, did God create the first life or did it self organized despite evidence on the contrary?

Abiogenesis is a different field than ToE. They are related, and also biology and chemistry and a whole host of others are.

God either created the first life or created a natural system for the purpose of creating life, IMHO. Which it was I don't know. There's darn little evidence at this point.

Some things suggest that life could have arisen from a natural process, others suggest the opposite.

 

[Poke]

In 10 out of the 10 encounters I have had with evolutionists (which indcludes TEs)- it is claimed that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

10 of those 10 Evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, while 10 of 10 Creationists don't believe in abiogenese, so you'd be excused for thinking they're lying in claiming one has nothing to do with the other.

Evolution, in the context of this forum, in the context of the Origins debate, and in the context of the Evolutionist's worldview, contrary to what Evolutionists tell you, includes abiogenesis.

They believe life evolved from non-life.

 

[steen]

Evolution, in the context of this forum, in the context of the Origins debate, and in the context of the Evolutionist's worldview, contrary to what Evolutionists tell you, includes abiogenesis.

False.

 

[Poke]

Abiogenesis is a different field than ToE. They are related, and also biology and chemistry and a whole host of others are.

Hey Crow, he didn't say "ToE".

Some things suggest that life could have arisen from a natural process, others suggest the opposite.

Uh, what things suggest that life arose from a supernatural process?

 

[Willtor]

10 of those 10 Evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, while 10 of 10 Creationists don't believe in abiogenese, so you'd be excused for thinking they're lying in claiming one has nothing to do with the other.

Evolution, in the context of this forum, in the context of the Origins debate, and in the context of the Evolutionist's worldview, contrary to what Evolutionists tell you, includes abiogenesis.

They believe life evolved from non-life.

No, no. They're different fields of study. Even if you disagree with both of them and if I agree with both, it doesn't make them the same thing. When you say "life evolved from non-life" you're not being technical, even though a technical hand is precisely what this discussion needs.

Consider this: a non-Christian comes up to you and tells you that the doctrine of the Hypostastic Union is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, it's not. They are both articles of the Christian faith, but they are not the same doctrine. I'm guessing that if he insisted that they were, you would write him off as someone who is hostile for some unknown reason.

This is exactly how you are coming across. Evolution and Abiogenesis are both fields of Science, but they are not the same thing. I don't even understand why you are working so hard to show that they are. Is "evolution" simply the term you use for science you don't like? If so, that's not how it's used in science. If you want to refute it, you'll have to refute it from the perspective of the scientists.

 

[shernren]

10 of those 10 Evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, while 10 of 10 Creationists don't believe in abiogenese, so you'd be excused for thinking they're lying in claiming one has nothing to do with the other.

Evolution, in the context of this forum, in the context of the Origins debate, and in the context of the Evolutionist's worldview, contrary to what Evolutionists tell you, includes abiogenesis.

They believe life evolved from non-life.

Look, if you're so confident that you're right, please show me which part of this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24966695&postcount=9

is wrong. Or is it all wrong right from the start simply because I accept a particular set of scientific theories? I clearly show how abiogenesis might have been relevant in certain scenarios of evolution, but not in ours because the deep-rooted similarity of all organisms (in terms of basic biochemistry and the universal use of RNA/DNA) in an evolutionary framework points to a single abiogenesis event leading to a single last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life today. For evolution, it wouldn't make any difference whether the LUCA magically materialized from thin air or not, since all life descended from it regardless of where it descended from.

What qualifies you to think you know evolution better than evolutionists?

And what drives you to display the kind of hate towards evolutionists you display? Towards people like Richard Dawkins, maybe I could still understand. But here you are among fellow believers, some (not all, I'll admit) of which are patient enough to explain multiple times why we believe what we believe, and yet you continue railing about evasive dirty lying evilutionists. (And it's not a one-off accusation as you seemed to suggest last time, it's a consistent feature of your posts here.)

Who are you edifying with your constant attacks?

 

[XTE]

I'm not going to point any fingers here but there is a type of person that exist that hurts themselves more than anyone else, especially their reputation.

It's the self-righteous. To put it more simply, people that feel they are right and tend to somehow block anything that might change their way of thinking. This leads to passion for what they do because nothing is holding it in check. At that point, there is a feed-back loop that makes the person more and more self-righteous until they are absolutely an island and on top of that, feel that their short, trite little remarks will actually impact someone elses way of thinking.

It's self-delusionment to think you are more right/more important than someone else because if this was the case that person would tell you that you are more important.

A little self-doubt never hurt anyone.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Poke]

False.

Why are you here, Poke?

At least you know it's not to bark "false" when someone speaks the truth.

 

[XTE]

At least you know it's not to bark "false" when someone speaks the truth.

So when we speak the "truth" of Evolution you don't bark "false?"

Get outta here with that.

We believe in the Truth of God, Jesus, and Evolution.

You believe in the Truth of God, Jesus, and the falsness of Evolution without any substantiation on your part.

You are bent on barking false and unfortunately, that's ALL YOU DO.

These one liners....they do nothing.

I'm singling you out Poke.

Why are you really here?

 

[Poke]

Look, if you're so confident that you're right, please show me which part of this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24966695&postcount=9

It's arbitrary of you to say a silicon life-form and your methane-breather couldn't have a common ancestor. Haven't you heard, Evolutionists reject the Irreducible Complexity argument. The nice thing about being an Evolutionist is that you can change the rules anytime you want.

What qualifies you to think you know evolution better than evolutionists?

I don't claim to know evolution better than evolutionists. I only claim to be a closer friend to Mr. Truth.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Evolutionists are masters of evasion.

10 of those 10 Evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, while 10 of 10 Creationists don't believe in abiogenese, so you'd be excused for thinking they're lying in claiming one has nothing to do with the other.

What was the commandment about bearing false witness?

Evolution is descent with modification.

All current evidence points to common descent, i.e. a common ancestor.

The fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, all points in this direction.

That is evolution.

The fact that there are twin nested hierarchies says squat about how that common ancestor came about.

In general I believe that most events have natural causes, because most do. (Here I am setting aside the question of whether God actively guides the path of the planets in their spheres.)

Perhaps we will some day come across evidence that the origin of life (as opposed to the origins of species) was not a natural event, but it is way too early to make that call.

As for the amount of evidence, if abiogenesis occured it was likely a unique event well over a billion years ago. No, we don't really expect to find much direct evidence of that event. But perhaps we will find fingerprints in RNA.