The origin of life and evolution

[Oncedeceived]

46And2 said: "You said that we don't need to know how gravity started to observe that it exists. Can you explain to me why you hold evolution to a different standard?"

You gave nothing in reply, only the claim that Darwin thought that abiogenesis and evolution were linked and left it at that. You did not say why you agree that gravity doesn't need a beginning but evolution does.
So why do you hold that view?

I don't hold it to a different standard. I have no issue with abiogenesis and evolution being separated by study. I only have that one issue with that I pointed out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't hold it to a different standard. I have no issue with abiogenesis and evolution being separated by study. I only have that one issue with that I pointed out.

What issue? That over a hundred (nearly put hundreds) years ago, the man who was first putting the theory down suggested that life could have come about via abiogenesis, included it in his theory, which we now know to be a wholly separate theory? Well, hypothesis on the part of abiogenesis, but still.

 

[Hieronymus]

Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false.

Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).

In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.

Here are 4 possible sources for the origin of life on earth. Tell me how any of them effect evolution in any way.
1. Abiogenesis​

This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.
It's the "chance (purposeless)" option.

2. Panspermia

Usually used as a 'cop out' because of the impossibilities of abiogenesis.
However, the supposed 'spermiation' is often thought of as a result of abiogenesis outside of the solar system.

3. Fiat creation by God
4. Something weird like being a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.

So 3 and 4 are basically the same: "design (purpose)".
Intelligence, skills and a will are involved in 3 and 4.​

 

[Oncedeceived]

What issue? That over a hundred (nearly put hundreds) years ago, the man who was first putting the theory down suggested that life could have come about via abiogenesis, included it in his theory, which we now know to be a wholly separate theory? Well, hypothesis on the part of abiogenesis, but still.

The one spoken of in the OP.

 

[46AND2]

Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).

This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.
It's the "chance (purposeless)" option.Usually used as a 'cop out' because of the impossibilities of abiogenesis.
However, the supposed 'spermiation' is often thought of as a result of abiogenesis outside of the solar system.So 3 and 4 are basically the same: "design (purpose)".
Intelligence, skills and a will are involved in 3 and 4.​

SMH. Amazing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The one spoken of in the OP.

But why?

 

[Hieronymus]

Gravity isn't moving (is it?). Evolution is a *process* but gravity is not. A process must have a beginning, just as gravity had a beginning.

Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.
This is obviously not the case with speciation (beyond the kinds) by selections of random mutations.

 

[46AND2]

Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.
This is obviously not the case with speciation (beyond the kinds) by selections of random mutations.

Every time a new species is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new fossil is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new genetic comparison is made, evolution is tested.
Every time a new embryo is studied, evolution is tested.
Every time....

Evolution has been subjected to, and passed, hundreds of thousands of more unique tests than gravity.

 

[pat34lee]

Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false. In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.
So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate and answer my question?

Cutting out the origin is a copout. Evolution removes
God and creation from the origin of life, so it's up to
those who believe in evolution to explain how life began
without God's intervention. The same goes with the
beginning and formation of the universe.

 

[46AND2]

Cutting out the origin is a copout. Evolution removes
God and creation from the origin of life, so it's up to
those who believe in evolution to explain how life began
without God's intervention. The same goes with the
beginning and formation of the universe.

Evolution and abiogenesis address two different questions. How does life change, and how did life begin, respectively. Either question could, in principle, be answered without knowing a single thing about the other topic.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[pat34lee]

Every time a new species is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new fossil is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new genetic comparison is made, evolution is tested.
Every time a new embryo is studied, evolution is tested.
Every time....

Evolution has been subjected to, and passed, hundreds of thousands of more unique tests than gravity.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, etc. That is like saying
"Every time I jump, I defy gravity". Then it turns
on and I fall. Evolution fell long ago.

Evolution today cannot be falsified. That is the
proof of it being a religion, not science. Evolution
has been disproven hundreds of time, yet scientists
would rather promote a lie than say God is the only
viable explanation for everything.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

 

[pat34lee]

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I feel the same. When you describe anything, where
do you begin? At the beginning. Even the bible starts
with God creating the universe and everything in it,
including man.

 

[pat34lee]

What issue? That over a hundred (nearly put hundreds) years ago, the man who was first putting the theory down suggested that life could have come about via abiogenesis, included it in his theory, which we now know to be a wholly separate theory? Well, hypothesis on the part of abiogenesis, but still.

The rest doesn't pass the test of theory either, but dogma's rarely do.
That is why they are usually a sign of religious beliefs.

 

[46AND2]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, etc. That is like saying
"Every time I jump, I defy gravity".

It's not like that at all. Like SO not like that, it's an incomprehensible comparison. I can't begin to understand how you drew it.

 

[46AND2]

I feel the same. When you describe anything, where
do you begin? At the beginning. Even the bible starts
with God creating the universe and everything in it,
including man.

Sure, I begin with "I don't know." And it makes no difference concerning the answer to the question, "how does life change."

 

[46AND2]

Evolution today cannot be falsified.

Of course it can. But not by one odd data point we can't explain. One outlier does not debunk the preponderance of evidence. It's the same thing with all science. If we drop a helium balloon, it rises instead of falls. Does that mean that gravity is falsified? Of course not. We look for an explanation for the apparent contradiction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).

You forgot "natural process".

This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.

Which is, more than likely, exactly how you think. I would hazard a guess that for 99.9999999% of the things you observe, you expect to find a natural process behind them. If you walk out in the morning and find that the ground is wet and puddles everywhere you look, do you think a supernatural deity magically made rain appear when you weren't looking, or do you think a natural process produced the water you see?

In fact, can you name a single process that has a known and verified supernatural mechanism behind it?

​

 

[Loudmouth]

Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.

Same for evolution, as 46and2 describes above.

This is obviously not the case with speciation (beyond the kinds) by selections of random mutations.

Yes, it is tested all of the time. The main test is seeing if there is a match between DNA phylogenies and morphological phylogenies.

"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."

Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.​

That hypothesis is tested every time we find a new species, a new fossil, or sequence a new genome.

 

[bhsmte]

Weird...maybe "delusional" isn't the half of it...then again, I do know some Atheists that have their head on pretty straight.

Uh huh

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolution today cannot be falsified.

Every single time evolution faces a test it has the potential to be falsified.

That is the proof of it being a religion, not science.

Go to a biomedical research lab and make this claim. You'll be promptly laughed out of the building.

Evolution
has been disproven hundreds of time

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

LOL. You're going to claim that evolution has been falsified followed by a link to a conspiracy theory site?
Care to provide any actual scientific research to support your claims?