Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Near]

For those who claim that you need abiogenesis in order for the theory of evolution to be true, could you please explain one thing?

What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if the first life on Earth were created by God, and all the life and species we see today evolved through natural processes from that first created life that we all share as a common ancestor?

Responding to an old post here...

Evolutionary theories don't all require a common ancestor do they? Couldn't we say God created various forms of life which later evolved rapidly into other forms? I don't believe plants and animals have a common ancestor.

I think the issue here is that natural selection within evolution is typically described as something which occurs by random chance, without God's influence.
A christian, such as myself, sees a conflict with this in that we Christians have reason to believe that God has had influence over the "evolution" of life. Therefore, if God at least influences the evolution of life, then it wasn't random or purposeless.
The random and purposeless part that is tied in typically with popular evolution theories is actually a philosophical add-on. Why should we believe that the development of life was random and purposeless, or that purposelessness and randomness actually exist when referring to the properties of the universe?

 

[ecco]

Evolutionary theories don't all require a common ancestor do they?

Yes, they do.

Couldn't we say God created various forms of life which later evolved rapidly into other forms?

You could say that, or you could go with genesis and say god created all forms of life that didn't have to evolve into other forms of life.

I don't believe plants and animals have a common ancestor.

That is your prerogative.

I think the issue here is that natural selection within evolution is typically described as something which occurs by random chance, without God's influence.

Evolution is typically described as "random" by people who don't believe in evolution. There is much more to it than just randomness.

A christian, such as myself, sees a conflict with this in that we Christians have reason to believe that God has had influence over the "evolution" of life. Therefore, if God at least influences the evolution of life, then it wasn't random or purposeless.

"IF".

Christians have many different beliefs regarding life. For the most part, it just depends on how much of scripture any given christian believes is literal and what parts are allegorical.

The random and purposeless part that is tied in typically with popular evolution theories is actually a philosophical add-on. Why should we believe that the development of life was random and purposeless, or that purposelessness and randomness actually exist when referring to the properties of the universe?

Nature is not concerned with "purpose". So let me rephrase your comment:

Why should we believe that the development of life was random, or that randomness actually exists when referring to the properties of the universe?
​

Again, randomness is only part of the concept. There is also the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific and not random ways.

​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, they do.

I'm not sure where to type my response here. Having carefully studied evolution, I have concluded that it is not fully explainable by randomness, although there is chaos and randomness in the universe. I believe evolution has a definite direction, which is from simple organists up to more complex ones. Hence, evolution is the rise of the more sensitive, who are not always that fit for survival. Also evolution continually brings in novelty. Hence, I see evolution as ultimately necessitating a transcendent imagination or God.

You could say that, or you could go with genesis and say god created all forms of life that didn't have to evolve into other forms of life.



That is your prerogative.




Evolution is typically described as "random" by people who don't believe in evolution. There is much more to it than just randomness.



"IF".

Christians have many different beliefs regarding life. For the most part, it just depends on how much of scripture any given christian believes is literal and what parts are allegorical.



Nature is not concerned with "purpose". So let me rephrase your comment:

Why should we believe that the development of life was random, or that randomness actually exists when referring to the properties of the universe?
​

Again, randomness is only part of the concept. There is also the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific and not random ways.

​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Near]

Yes, they do.
You could say that, or you could go with genesis and say god created all forms of life that didn't have to evolve into other forms of life.
That is your prerogative.
Evolution is typically described as "random" by people who don't believe in evolution. There is much more to it than just randomness.
"IF".
Christians have many different beliefs regarding life. For the most part, it just depends on how much of scripture any given christian believes is literal and what parts are allegorical.
Nature is not concerned with "purpose". So let me rephrase your comment:

Why should we believe that the development of life was random, or that randomness actually exists when referring to the properties of the universe?
Again, randomness is only part of the concept. There is also the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific and not random ways. ​

[/QUOTE]

Christian Schwabe, a biologist, is a proponent of the theory that life came from multiple origins, not one single common one, so it seems not all evolutionary theories require a common ancestor.

You say that nature isn't concerned with purpose. That's right, just like rocks and water lack concern with teleology.

However, some atheists however do try to make it a point to say that it is the case that life is purposeless as if they determine that from looking at scientific data. Atheists shouldn't refer to purpose, or lack thereof, when relaying scientific theories unless they have an agenda.

I don't think you answered the question though.

(the rephrased question)Why should we believe that the development of life was random, or that randomness actually exists when referring to the properties of the universe?

(apparently, the response) Again, randomness is only part of the concept. There is also the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific and not random ways.

Right, but that doesn't lead me to think that randomness, which you say is a part of the concept, is something which actually exists. As for the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific ways, that idea is tangible, and I don't have a problem with it.

As for evolution, I'm open to listening to multiple ideas, but I take an anti-realist view of the many claims made about it, and I feel justified in saying that we simply don't have enough data to say with certainty that all life evolved from a single cell through mere "chance". We can make stories as to what may have happened, but we don't know.
Looking at the other theories of how life came to be on Earth, I think some form of the theory of panspermia better explains things. The Cambrian explosion for example seems better explained by it.​

 

[SkyWriting]

For those who claim that you need abiogenesis in order for the theory of evolution to be true, could you please explain one thing?

There is no theory of change that ignores origins. They are tied together.

 

[ecco]

Christian Schwabe, a biologist, is a proponent of the theory that life came from multiple origins, not one single common one, so it seems not all evolutionary theories require a common ancestor.

Not, "so it seems..." More accurately, "If his views are correct..." He has not demonstrated them to be correct.

You say that nature isn't concerned with purpose. That's right, just like rocks and water lack concern with teleology.

Your point?

However, some atheists however do try to make it a point to say that it is the case that life is purposeless as if they determine that from looking at scientific data. Atheists shouldn't refer to purpose, or lack thereof, when relaying scientific theories unless they have an agenda.

What agenda do you suppose scientists have in concluding that nature has no purpose?

On the other hand, theologians like to assume that nature in general, and humans in specific, have a purpose. If they would have to admit that nature has no purpose, no agenda, they would be saying god made people with no purpose. Heavens forbid!

Right, but that doesn't lead me to think that randomness, which you say is a part of the concept, is something which actually exists. As for the natural propensity of atoms to form molecules in very specific ways, that idea is tangible, and I don't have a problem with it.

You agree that atoms combine to form molecules.
You disagree that randomness actually exists.

Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?

As for evolution, I'm open to listening to multiple ideas, but I take an anti-realist view of the many claims made about it, and I feel justified in saying that we simply don't have enough data to say with certainty that all life evolved from a single cell ...

I personally don't believe that all cells alive today are descended from just one cell. This may be what Christian Schwabe is referring to. You could, therefore, argue that my statement that all life came from a common ancestor is, technically, incorrect.

Amino acids lead to proteins, proteins lead to cells. My belief is that immense numbers of amino acids led to immense numbers of proteins and immense numbers of proteins led to immense numbers of cells. However, all of these cells would have been virtually identical.

Looking at the other theories of how life came to be on Earth, I think some form of the theory of panspermia better explains things. The Cambrian explosion for example seems better explained by it.

Panspermia only sets the origin of life farther back in time to somewhere else, it doesn't change the process.

 

[Astrophile]

I think the issue here is that natural selection within evolution is typically described as something which occurs by random chance, without God's influence.

First, so far as I know, most biologists, whatever their religious beliefs, insist that natural selection is not random, indeed the very reverse. It is no more random than an object falling to the ground under gravity or a hot object emitting light. Whether natural selection works 'without God's influence', on the other hand, is not something that can be found out by the scientific method.

A christian, such as myself, sees a conflict with this in that we Christians have reason to believe that God has had influence over the "evolution" of life. Therefore, if God at least influences the evolution of life, then it wasn't random or purposeless.

Yes, when I was a Christian I used to think the same. I still agree that if there is a God, and if he or she influences the evolution of life, then evolution is not purposeless, or, in a theological sense, random. However, as I have just said, that is not something that can be found out by science. We cannot use science to prove that evolution is purposeless or to disprove it, nor can we use science to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

As for randomness, it depends what you mean by random. The pressure of a gas in a container is due to random collisions between the molecules of the gas and the walls of the container. If it comes to it, the process by which our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., met and married and had children owes a good deal to random encounters between a man and a woman, although a theist might say that these encounters (and the molecular collisions) were all controlled by God.

The random and purposeless part that is tied in typically with popular evolution theories is actually a philosophical add-on.

Natural selection is not random, even in a purely naturalistic sense. So far as science can go, evolution has no conscious purpose or long-term objective, but that is not inconsistent with its being ultimately controlled by a God. Any belief that evolution has or lacks a purpose or that it is or is not under the influence of a God is a philosophical add-on, not a scientific hypothesis.

Whether the products of evolution are predestined, in a naturalistic sense, is a matter of dispute among scientists. S.J. Gould thought that if we could re-run evolution from the beginning of the Cambrian period it would be very unlikely that anything like human beings would evolve. Other biologists have thought that organs like eyes, wings, fins etc. would inevitably evolve to make use of the appropriate features of the environment. However, this question has nothing to do with the existence of a God; it is a purely scientific dispute.

 

[Astrophile]

I think the issue here is that natural selection within evolution is typically described as something which occurs by random chance, without God's influence.

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Near]

Not, "so it seems..." More accurately, "If his views are correct..." He has not demonstrated them to be correct.

He doesn't need to prove that his views are correct; what he has is a theory, and it's one that still includes evolution. So I'll stand by the statement that not all evolutionary theories require a single common ancestor... but I don't really care about that point anyways.

What agenda do you suppose scientists have in concluding that nature has no purpose?
On the other hand, theologians like to assume that nature in general, and humans in specific, have a purpose. If they would have to admit that nature has no purpose, no agenda, they would be saying god made people with no purpose. Heavens forbid!

I said some atheists have an agenda to make it a point to say that it seems God didn't create life, and that life is ateleological. I recently witnessed by biology professor expressing the elements of such an agenda.
As for scientists, not just atheists, they should refrain from saying that there is or isn't a purpose to life, unless they're clear that they're expressing their beliefs which they've come to from personnel experience.

You disagree that randomness actually exists.
Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?

I don't see why I should believe in randomness. Causal determinism makes more sense, even from a naturalist POV from what I've learned in school. Randomness is like libertarian free-will. You might as well replace the word random with "magic". I'm not even sure of what you refer to when you speak of something as "random".

As for randomness, it depends what you mean by random. The pressure of a gas in a container is due to random collisions between the molecules of the gas and the walls of the container. If it comes to it, the process by which our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., met and married and had children owes a good deal to random encounters between a man and a woman, although a theist might say that these encounters (and the molecular collisions) were all controlled by God.

S.J. Gould may have only been considering biology in thinking that humans may not have evolved if evolution did a re-run from the Cambrian explosion. Physics has to be considered. Collisions between molecules of the gas and walls of a container are not random. They follow physical laws, and chains of cause and effect. If the big-bang were to occur again in the same exact way with the same exact conditions, that chain of events would lead to the same exact events occurring now, with the same men and women meeting each other producing the same kids, governed by a chain of cause and effect. I'd think that's something even an atheist could agree with.
As for what you said about natural selection; if it's not the case that randomness is a part of it, then I don't see why a theist couldn't believe in it.

 

[ecco]

Endure2TheEnd

Christian Schwabe, a biologist, is a proponent of the theory that life came from multiple origins, not one single common one, so it seems not all evolutionary theories require a common ancestor.

ecco said: ↑

Not, "so it seems..." More accurately, "If his views are correct..." He has not demonstrated them to be correct.

He doesn't need to prove that his views are correct; what he has is a theory, and it's one that still includes evolution. So I'll stand by the statement that not all evolutionary theories require a single common ancestor...

You made an assertion based on another man's assertions. If, and only if, his assertions are correct, does your assertion even make any sense.


ecco said: ↑

What agenda do you suppose scientists have in concluding that nature has no purpose?

On the other hand, theologians like to assume that nature in general, and humans in specific, have a purpose. If they would have to admit that nature has no purpose, no agenda, they would be saying god made people with no purpose. Heavens forbid!

I said some atheists have an agenda to make it a point to say that it seems God didn't create life, and that life is ateleological. As for scientists, not just atheists, they should refrain from saying that there is or isn't a purpose to life, unless they're clear that they're expressing their beliefs which they've come to from personnel experience.

Science doesn't have an agenda “to say that it seems God didn't create life”.

Science has an agenda to find the nature of Nature. So far, their findings show no support or need for any god. There is as much scientific evidence for LastThursdayism as there is for the christian god as there is for the gods of the Native Americans. None.


ecco said: ↑

You disagree that randomness actually exists.
Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?

I don't see why I should believe in randomness.

I guess I need to repeat the question you failed to address:

Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?​

Causal determinism makes more sense, even from a naturalist POV from what I've learned in school. Randomness is like libertarian free-will. You might as well replace the word random with "magic".

Causal determinism, "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature", has not been scientifically validated.

I'm not even sure of what you refer to when you speak of something as "random".

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/
adjective

1. 1.
   made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

As for what you said about natural selection; if it's not the case that randomness is a part of it, then I don't see why a theist couldn't believe in it.

Ask a theist.

 

[justlookinla]

Mutation, the engine which drives Darwinist evolution, is random. Natural selection does not create new life forms, it only populates existing life forms..

 

[Astrophile]

If the big-bang were to occur again in the same exact way with the same exact conditions, that chain of events would lead to the same exact events occurring now, with the same men and women meeting each other producing the same kids, governed by a chain of cause and effect. I'd think that's something even an atheist could agree with.

I think that you are forgetting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

[ecco]

Collisions between molecules of the gas and walls of a container are not random. They follow physical laws, and chains of cause and effect. If the big-bang were to occur again in the same exact way with the same exact conditions, that chain of events would lead to the same exact events occurring now, with the same men and women meeting each other producing the same kids, governed by a chain of cause and effect. I'd think that's something even an atheist could agree with.

Really? I don't. Let's see any atheists reading this thread agree with it.

 

[Near]

Really? I don't. Let's see any atheists reading this thread agree with it.

Well, there's nothing theistic about what I said. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who don't believe in randomness. Not all atheists have the same views. I appreciate the fact that I can find points of agreement with people even if they are atheists. Take for example Astrophile, he's made some point I completely agree with.

Science doesn't have an agenda “to say that it seems God didn't create life”. Science has an agenda to find the nature of Nature. So far, their findings show no support or need for any god. There is as much scientific evidence for LastThursdayism as there is for the christian god as there is for the gods of the Native Americans. None.

You're right. Science doesn't have an agenda, did I claim otherwise?
Some atheists have an agenda, for example, Richard Dawkins. I don't see why you're responding as if I said that science has an agenda. Science is not a person or group of people. The findings need not show any support for or against any god. I don't really care if there's scientific evidence for the christian God or not. I think there are good reasons to believe in God, but according to what I believe, faith in God is what counts, whether or not advances in science somehow reveal God's presence.

I guess I need to repeat the question you failed to address:
Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?

Like Sextus Empiricus, the Roman philosopher, I don't need to make a judgement on the matter. I'm allowed to be skeptical towards either view, and I can suspend judgement. If you have a point you can say it already. I can say the atoms were selected, and I can also say three atoms amidst millions of others were in close proximity, there's nothing random about it. It's like clock-work.

Randomness:

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

I think I saw that definition off of google as well. I also saw: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." I don't believe in randomness. There is a pattern, a method, or orderliness to how things in the universe move.

Causal determinism, "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature", has not been scientifically validated.

I know that, and I don't even believe in causal determinism. Causal determinism cannot be scientifically validated or invalidated; it's a philosophical view. I'm not asking you to believe in it. It's just a tenable belief held by both theists and non-theists.

 

[Near]

I think that you are forgetting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

It doesn't seem clear to me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that casual determinism is not valid, or that randomness is real. Admittedly, I've just done some googling on what it is. It seems to refer to measurements, and how we can't be certain of the exact position and momentum of particles and waves at the same time.
Sources:

However, it's still the case that a wave is both going somewhere, and a particle is somewhere, and it's the product of physical processes that people are mostly ignorant of, as far as I know.
Anyways, if you want to elaborate more on what you mean I'd be glad to reflect on it.

 

[ecco]

Endure2TheEnd Post #369

Collisions between molecules of the gas and walls of a container are not random. They follow physical laws, and chains of cause and effect. If the big-bang were to occur again in the same exact way with the same exact conditions, that chain of events would lead to the same exact events occurring now, with the same men and women meeting each other producing the same kids, governed by a chain of cause and effect. I'd think that's something even an atheist could agree with.

ecco said:

Really? I don't. Let's see any atheists reading this thread agree with it.

Well, there's nothing theistic about what I said. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who don't believe in randomness.

In that case, I'm sure you can point to some who don't. Until then, you may want to stop repeating it.

Some atheists have an agenda, for example, Richard Dawkins.

What is his agenda?

I don't see why you're responding as if I said that science has an agenda. Science is not a person or group of people. The findings need not show any support for or against any god.

The findings show no support for any gods.

I don't really care if there's scientific evidence for the christian God or not. I think there are good reasons to believe in God, but according to what I believe, faith in God is what counts, whether or not advances in science somehow reveal God's presence.

They haven't so far.

ecco said:

I guess I need to repeat the question you failed to address:
Are you saying that when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom, they are specifically selected for that process as compared to just being three random atoms amidst millions of others that happened to be in close proximity?

Like Sextus Empiricus, the Roman philosopher, I don't need to make a judgement on the matter. I'm allowed to be skeptical towards either view, and I can suspend judgement. If you have a point you can say it already.

My point is that randomness is part of nature.

I can say the atoms were selected, and I can also say three atoms amidst millions of otherswerein close proximity, there's nothing random about it. It's like clock-work.

If you want to say the atoms were selected, then you need to address who or what did the selecting.

Randomness:
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

I think I saw that definition off of google as well. I also saw: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." I don't believe in randomness. There is a pattern, a method, or orderliness to how things in the universe move.

Insofar as the movements of the planets, I would agree. Insofar as the movements of atoms and sub-atomic particles, I would disagree. If you can show differently, then please do so.

ecco said:

Causal determinism, "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature", has not been scientifically validated.

I know that, and I don't even believe in causal determinism.

Causal determinism cannot be scientifically validated or invalidated; it's a philosophical view. I'm not asking you to believe in it. It's just a tenable belief held by both theists and non-theists.

Then why bring it into the conversation?
Your Post#375

It doesn't seem clear to me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that casual determinism is not valid, or that randomness is real.

Perhaps it's time for you to state why you believe randomness is not real.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is no theory of change that ignores origins. They are tied together.

Actually, this is highly incorrect. More that these theories require what they act upon to exist prior to them coming into play. Regardless as to whether or not the first life developed on its own or was brought here or was created by some deity, from that point after its existence started, evolution begins to apply.

 

[Near]

Perhaps it's time for you to state why you believe randomness is not real.

I see no reason to. There is no evidence for it.

If you want to say the atoms were selected, then you need to address who or what did the selecting.

No I don't. You're the one who believes in randomness, the burden of proof is on you. I also said that the three atoms were together, without referring to selection. They would be a natural consequence of prior causes. That isn't random, or selection through an agent.

My point is that randomness is part of nature.

That point isn't scientifically validated. In fact it's contrary to scientific thought. Science typically presupposes determinism. It doesn't presuppose randomness.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps it's time for you to state why you believe randomness is not real.

I see no reason to. There is no evidence for it.

If you want to say the atoms were selected, then you need to address who or what did the selecting.

No I don't. You're the one who believes in randomness, the burden of proof is on you. I also said that the three atoms were together, without referring to selection. They would be a natural consequence of prior causes. That isn't random, or selection through an agent.

The prior causes that put the three atoms together is what???

My point is that randomness is part of nature.

That point isn't scientifically validated. In fact it's contrary to scientific thought. Science typically presupposes determinism. It doesn't presuppose randomness.

So, you don't believe in randomness. You don't think it's necessary to explain who or what did the selecting of which atoms form any given molecule. However, you then go on to suggest the selection of the specific atoms is due to "determinism".

You further state that: Science typically presupposes determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.​

Please show me where "Science typically presupposes determinism".

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, this is highly incorrect. More that these theories require what they act upon to exist prior to them coming into play. Regardless as to whether or not the first life developed on its own or was brought here or was created by some deity, from that point after its existence started, evolution begins to apply.

So nothing followed natural rules and changed...until something suddenly appeared
and started to change and followed a new set of rules?
Or were all the rules the same the whole time?
And what exact point separates the two topics?