Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Loudmouth]

the question as stated does not apply to deists, because deists believe god created not only the first life but also every animal.
the question specifically asks about first life only.

There are a few flavors of deism out there, but most versions have God starting the universe and letting it run on its own from there. That would mean that everything since the Big Bang has gone according to natural laws.

For this thread, I am pushing it up a bit. For this thread, I am saying that the universal common ancestor from which all current life evolved was created by a deity. You have just one supernatural act, the creation of the universal common ancestor that all species share, including us. How would this change the theory of evolution?

the miller-urey experiment does nothing for proving "life from lifelessness".

Irrelevant for this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the purposes of this thread, life did not come about by abiogenesis. The first life came about through supernatural processes.

The only question is how this would affect the theory of evolution, if this scenario were true.

It wouldn't.

That's like asking how last night's storm affected Humpty Dumpty.

 

[Loudmouth]

It wouldn't.

I agree. This is why we scratch our heads a bit when creationists claim that evolution requires abiogenesis.

That's like asking how last night's storm affected Humpty Dumpty.

You sounded sane for a second there.

 

[justlookinla]

At least it's safe to say that life started somewhere, somehow, from something.

 

[Loudmouth]

At least it's safe to say that life started somewhere, somehow, from something.

Evolution doesn't have to explain the origin of life for the same reasons that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't have to explain the origin of germs.

If people are having a tough time understanding why evolution does not require abiogenesis, then I would suggest these following steps.

1. Pick a scientific theory you do accept.

2. Keep going back to the origin of the things in your theory until you hit "I don't know".

3. Ask yourself if you have to reject the theory if a deity created the origin material for things in that theory.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution doesn't have to explain the origin of life for the same reasons that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't have to explain the origin of germs.

If people are having a tough time understanding why evolution does not require abiogenesis, then I would suggest these following steps.

1. Pick a scientific theory you do accept.

2. Keep going back to the origin of the things in your theory until you hit "I don't know".

3. Ask yourself if you have to reject the theory if a deity created the origin material for things in that theory.

Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) has to explain how humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Thing is, it can't explain it as supported by the scientific method. Another view of evolution, on the other hand, can be explained and supported by the scientific method, i.e, bacteria evolving into bacteria, moths into moths. Nothing really new to see there, just more of the same ole same ole.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree. This is why we scratch our heads a bit when creationists claim that evolution requires abiogenesis.

I love to ask evolutionists where the angels came from, if there was no life prior to abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) has to explain how humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Darwin had humans evolving from earlier population of apes, not a single life form.

Another view of evolution, on the other hand, can be explained and supported by the scientific method, i.e, bacteria evolving into bacteria, moths into moths.

Chimps and humans evolving from a shared ancestor is primates evolving into primates. Guess you don't have a problem with that, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

I love to ask evolutionists where the angels came from, if there was no life prior to abiogenesis.

The same place that leprechauns came from.

 

[bhsmte]

The same place that leprechauns came from.

And remember, every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings.

 

[Loudmouth]

And remember, every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings.

They also play well in the outfield.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwin had humans evolving from earlier population of apes, not a single life form.

From chapter 14, Origin of Species......

"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

Chimps and humans evolving from a shared ancestor is primates evolving into primates. Guess you don't have a problem with that, right?

I have a problem with the same life from producing both a human and a pine tree by random processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

From chapter 14, Origin of Species......

"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

First, it says one prototype, not one single life form. Second, it says animals, not humans.

Want to try that again?

I have a problem with the same life from producing both a human and a pine tree by random processes.

Reality could care less what you do or don't have a problem with. Cardinal Bellarmine had a problem with the Earth moving about the Sun. Didn't stop it from being true.

 

[justlookinla]

First, it says one prototype, not one single life form. Second, it says animals, not humans.

Want to try that again?

Apparently you missed this very important statement......

"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
​

I'm not sure what "all the organic beings" means to you.

Reality could care less what you do or don't have a problem with. Cardinal Bellarmine had a problem with the Earth moving about the Sun. Didn't stop it from being true.

If you have the faith to believe that a life form produced both a human and a pine tree, certainly your right to embrace such a pseudo scientific view.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same place that leprechauns came from.

No argument there.

The proper answer is:

Angels came from NOWHERE.

They were created ex nihilo.

Leprechauns probably were (or are, if they're still around down here), angels.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

 

[AV1611VET]

And remember, every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings.

Thanks for posting that.

That reminds me -- QV please:

Take the cherub, for example --- here's the Hallmark version of a cherub:

Cute --- ain't he?

Now here's the Bible's version of a cherub:

--- taken from the Rose is Rose comic strip.

 

[As I was saying]

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?

The question is moot as all the life and species we see today did not evolve through natural processes from the first created life. The bible makes it very clear that God created every thing after its own kind. There is nothing at all to suggest we all had a common ancestor. Humans were created humans. Cats were created cats. Dogs were created dogs. Lizards were created lizards and so on ad infinitum. The common ancestor bit is a creation of man who wants to keep God out of the equation so that they can claim they don't need God because they have it all worked out.

The bible does not suggest that a little blob of amoeba appeared out of the blue and became a fish which became a lizard which became a bird which became a dinosaur which became a monkey which became a human being which became a......In addition there is no evidence whatsoever that is what happened as far as the idea of evolution claims. Well, did claim but I am aware that evolution is a shifting sand that makes itself up as it goes along.

Not so long ago, evolution was all about a monkey becoming a human. Now I am told by evolutionists that evolution is all about adaptation so monkeys don't become humans anymore. They grow long fur to adapt to their cold environment. That being the case, it means that God created Adam and Eve and since that day we have men and women creating male and female. Not once is their any record of a man and a woman creating anything other than a male or a female or a monkey producing a human.

I realise that how humans lived and operated changed over time as they developed their ability to make and create things and their concept of community but at the end of the day men were and are men and women were and are women and monkeys were and are monkeys and ne'er the twain shall meet. The fact that monkeys have 98% of the characteristics of humans means nothing other than that is how God created them. Why shouldn't God create an animal that has 98% of the characteristics of humans? After all, he is God so he can do what he likes.

 

[As I was saying]

It seems that all you have is faith in the view that we're no more than a sack of chemicals.

Is that 'because I say so'?

Touche!

 

[crjmurray]

The question is moot as all the life and species we see today did not evolve through natural processes from the first created life. The bible makes it very clear that God created every thing after its own kind. There is nothing at all to suggest we all had a common ancestor.

Well that's just not true.

 

[crjmurray]

Not so long ago, evolution was all about a monkey becoming a human. Now I am told by evolutionists that evolution is all about adaptation so monkeys don't become humans anymore.

No, see the problem here is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. This is a misunderstanding that could be rectified by a google search.