Harun Yahya's Collapse of evolution, questions 1-5.

[Arikay]

1) Ok, so you can't show me where Crick says abiogenesis is part of evolution. That settles that.

2) You missread the quote, here it is again,
"to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

You see, he says "led from" not "led too." Protoorganisms are life and snails are life, evolution lead from protoorganisms to snails etc. Not a word about abiogenesis there, it assumes the existance of life.
Thus we can conclude that this definition does not include abiogenesis.

3) Ok, this part is settled unless you can provide something substantial to back up the idea that abiogenesis is part of evolution, we can conclude that its not.
Next.

 

[Jet Black]

Actually I was under the impression we were argueing whether or not abiogenesis is a part of evolution

well give that evolution would surive perfectly untouched even if it was demonstrated that the first bacterial life form was made ex nihilo by God, and things went from there, then...well I let you make up your own mind. (evolution is a biogenic theory)

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, then I have to agree that your quote said substantially the same thing you where and you are quite right that I misread it. Nice point.

We would seem to be left with only the implication of abiogenesis and I imagine you can clear that up for me with no problem. Futuyma is working from a strong neo-Darwinian point of view apparently he has adopted the sythesis of genetics with materialistic and mechanistic principles. Are we to suppose the implications are not exclusivly naturalistic. It's not supprising that a creationist would be under the distinct impression that divine intervention in the causitive chain would be dismissed leaving only abiogenesis as the only substantive cause. This premise permeates evolutionary thought.

"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism --- of much of science, in short --- that has since been the stage of most Western thought" (Futuyma 1986).

As far as the Crick quote you have allready said that he belived in abiogenesis he just couldn't prove it happened here. Abiogenesis still expressly implied in evolutionary theory, the mechanistic and materialistic causation allow for nothing else.

 

[Arikay]

Abiogenesis isn't implied in evolutionary theory, but is implied in science. The reason is because its the best scientific explaination we have for the origin of life. Although it could still be a possibility that God snapped his fingers and poped life into existance, but also created a mechanism that would create life, because the evidence we have about how life originally formed on earth is very small.

Ok, then I have to agree that your quote said substantially the same thing you where and you are quite right that I misread it. Nice point.

We would seem to be left with only the implication of abiogenesis and I imagine you can clear that up for me with no problem. Futuyma is working from a strong neo-Darwinian point of view apparently he has adopted the sythesis of genetics with materialistic and mechanistic principles. Are we to suppose the implications are not exclusivly naturalistic. It's not supprising that a creationist would be under the distinct impression that divine intervention in the causitive chain would be dismissed leaving only abiogenesis as the only substantive cause. This premise permeates evolutionary thought.

"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism --- of much of science, in short --- that has since been the stage of most Western thought" (Futuyma 1986).

As far as the Crick quote you have allready said that he belived in abiogenesis he just couldn't prove it happened here. Abiogenesis still expressly implied in evolutionary theory, the mechanistic and materialistic causation allow for nothing else.

 

[mark kennedy]

Abiogenesis isn't implied in evolutionary theory, but is implied in science. The reason is because its the best scientific explaination we have for the origin of life. Although it could still be a possibility that God snapped his fingers and poped life into existance, but also created a mechanism that would create life, because the evidence we have about how life originally formed on earth is very small.

So I think it is safe to say that what they are calling abiogenesis on that website is actually the mechanistic and materialistic assumptions of natural science. I do think that the article makes a warranted assertion that this principle is evident in evolutionary thought. I really didn't like the definition they gave for evolution and I thought the Crick quote was just an honest statement of his personal feelings, not really related to evolution directly. I'm still not convinced that abiogenesis is as distant from evolution as you would have me believe but I suppose that is largely a matter of opinion. I guess its like the speclations of how abiogenesis might have happened by biologists. I believe it's true, I just can't seem to prove it.

I have some running around to do but I would like to get to the other questions later.

Allways a pleasure Arikay,

 

[Arikay]

I don't think what they are calling abiogenesis is actually just naturalistic science, since they start to specifically go into abiogenesis.

I agree, abiogenesis and evolution do relate to each other, in the sense that they are both about life, and abiogenesis would then lead to evolution. They are specifically seperate theories that need to be treated as such. And that is where many creationist groups run into problems.

So I think it is safe to say that what they are calling abiogenesis on that website is actually the mechanistic and materialistic assumptions of natural science. I really didn't like the definition they gave for evolution and I thought the Crick quote was just an honest statement of his personal feelings, not really related to evolution directly. I'm still not convinced that abiogenesis is as distant from evolution as you would have me believe but I suppose that is largely a matter of opinion.

I have some running around to do but I would like to get to the other questions later.

Allways a pleasure Arikay,