Just Curious

Poke · Jun 28, 2006

Willtor said:
When you say "life evolved from non-life" you're not being technical, even though a technical hand is precisely what this discussion needs.

When an Evolutionist says "evolution says nothing about abiogenesis", he's not trying to be technical, he's trying to obfuscate.

Evolution means to unfold, or to develop. The development of life from non-life, with technical accuracy can be called "evolution." And this evolution is solidly bolted to the bottom end of Darwin paradigm, which is why it's a common subject in origin forums.

Indeed, in the context of origins debates, Creation says God is the creator. Evolution says Nature is the creator, whether that be first life, novel species, or the universe. "Theistic Evolution" is actually an oxymoron.

It is dishonesty to pretend the word "evolution" is wholly owned by Darwinism, and that the use of the word in another context is technically inaccurate.

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.

To complete your analogy, the Christian would have to have coined the term "Trinity" and not use the term to reference to "Hypostastic Union." Evolutionists didn't create the term "evolution" and they frequently use the term outside of Darwinism. They even use it in regards to abiogenesis.

Melethiel · Jun 28, 2006

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

We believe in the Truth of God and Jesus. We don't believe in evolution. We accept that it is the most logical explanation currently out there.

Sorry, I know it's semantics, but it's exactly these type of arguments that drive me nuts.

Willtor · Jun 28, 2006

Poke said:
When an Evolutionist says "evolution says nothing about abiogenesis", he's not trying to be technical, he's trying to obfuscate.

Evolution means to unfold, or to develop. The development of life from non-life, with technical accuracy can be called "evolution." And this evolution is solidly bolted to the bottom end of Darwin paradigm, which is why it's a common subject in origin forums.

Indeed, in the context of origins debates, Creation says God is the creator. Evolution says Nature is the creator, whether that be first life, novel species, or the universe. "Theistic Evolution" is actually an oxymoron.

It is dishonesty to pretend the word "evolution" is wholly owned by Darwinism, and that the use of the word in another context is technically inaccurate.

To complete your analogy, the Christian would have to have coined the term "Trinity" and not use the term to reference to "Hypostastic Union." Evolutionists didn't create the term "evolution" and they frequently use the term outside of Darwinism. They even use it in regards to abiogenesis.

As has already been pointed out, evolution has a different semantic meaning in each context. One is the scientific theory. The other is a synonym for development in a much broader sense. If any of us thought you understood the difference I don't think any of us would take issue with your use of the word. However, you conflate them and then accuse us of trying to obfuscate things.

We aren't even talking about reasons and evidences, here. We're just talking about how scientists use these words. We're talking about semantics. This shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, except for clarification. You're being overly hostile, here. It's not necessary.

XTE · Jun 28, 2006

Melethiel said:
We believe in the Truth of God and Jesus. We don't believe in evolution. We accept that it is the most logical explanation currently out there.

Sorry, I know it's semantics, but it's exactly these type of arguments that drive me nuts.

LOL, I passed around the thought of writing:

We believe in the truth of God and Jesus. We KNOW of the fact of Evolution.

Is that what you were going for?

I like to use the word belief because it's what I practice so fitting it to Evolution just came naturally.

Thank you and God Bless

shernren · Jun 28, 2006

Indeed, in the context of origins debates, Creation says God is the creator. Evolution says Nature is the creator, whether that be first life, novel species, or the universe. "Theistic Evolution" is actually an oxymoron.

How do you know God can't use Nature to create?

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.

I don't see what irreducible complexity has to do with my statements that

fundamentally disconnected clades (in my example, an elemental discrepancy between silicon as the primary bio-element and carbon)
would necessitate multiple abiogenetic events
which would cause the study of these abiogenetic events
to be fundamental to the study of the divergence between those clades.

Since all extant life-forms on earth share basic biochemical and bio-informational frameworks
we can postulate parsimoniously that only a single abiogenetic event was needed
and therefore that the study of abiogenesis
is not crucial to understanding the divergence between modern clades.

I've laid out my thought flow for you logically, line by line. Refute or desist.

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

If I hold you at your word, I don't see where your authority is to say something like this:

When an Evolutionist says "evolution says nothing about abiogenesis", he's not trying to be technical, he's trying to obfuscate.

since you claim that you do not necessarily know more about evolution than evolutionists do.

Poke · Jun 28, 2006

shernren said:
fundamentally disconnected clades (in my example,

"Fundamentally disconnected clades" sounds like you mean Irreducable Complexity.

Evolution is based on imagination. A non-silicon creature gradually incorporated silicon into its makeup...

Since all extant life-forms on earth share basic biochemical and bio-informational frameworks
we can postulate parsimoniously that only a single abiogenetic event was needed
and therefore that the study of abiogenesis
is not crucial to understanding the divergence between modern clades.

Unless you know something about abiogeneses, how do you know whatever causes life to form would result in different biochemical and bio-informational frameworks with different abiogeneses events? Every snowflake has a separate origin, yet they're all very similar.

Yes, a common designer or singular abiogenesis event is the most parsimonous, but you're still making statements about abiogenesis to further your Theory of Evolution. But, this is digression from the fact that the term "evolution" has a broader meaning than "Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

since you claim that you do not necessarily know more about evolution than evolutionists do.

Do you know as much about politics as a politician? No? Then you wouldn't accuse any of them of anything unflattering, would you?

muaxiong · Jul 6, 2006

Sorry for the rather late responses, just been very busy - comes with the territory of having kids you know.

random_guy said:
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.

Exactly as broad a definition as one can come up with, in fact it is no different than this parroted definition - "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." H. Curtis, N. Barnes - Biology 5th Edition, 1989 p974.

But this thread isnt on the meaning of evolution as I am sure this topic has been addressed elsewhere so I will leave it at that.

However, evolution happens because of mutations and reproductive differentials. That's why abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution.

The question of whether evolution happens per the definition above isnt being disagreed on because no informed creationist denies that if by evolution it is simply a change in genes that are already existing. What is of debate is when such changes in themselves are attributed to have been the cause of its own origin as well as being capable of creating novel new functions that did not previously exist. However in keeping with the objective of this thread I will not pursue this point.

As for accepting abiogenesis as is, I think the reason is scientifically, abiogenesis had to have happened since we see life.

Scientifically what? That it is a scientifically supported theory that can be experimentally verified, or that its hypothesis of naturalism (which excludes the supernatural) is kept within the naturalistic workings of science?

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.

I have nothing against theories, they are fine and dandy, however it is experimental evidence that provides vigor for any theory - unfortunately abiogenesis is one such theory where evidence is very much lacking. Personally the reason I suppose it is still around because it is in keeping with the naturalism of science where an appeal to the supernatural would be unscientific.

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.

What I am wondering is if there were any scientists around then to get the first life started and how does the ability of scientist to create life be evidence for life originating within the confines of stochastic chemistry?

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?

This line of reasoning is not only spurious but also irrelevant since atomic theory is not in question here - only pond scum to protocells evolution (leaving alone protocells to peoples).

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.

The question isnt really just about the natural working of chemistry as much as it is about unguided chemistry and whether or not the origin of life came via such a process. If one concludes that an outside source such as God had a hand in it is it still a scientific deduction or is it based on physical evidence?

However, I hope it's chemistry since I would like to also create life some day .

Through hard work and with lots of intelligent guidance I hope? Just a question how does creating life yourself with chemistry be evidence that it originated on its own?

muaxiong · Jul 6, 2006

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

Mallon said: 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?").

No need to apologize, I do it myself. Perhaps the reason I ask the question is that as a parent and a teacher I am concerned with what is presented to students. If the origin of life is a separate and unrelated field which has nothing to do with evolution then why is it included in biology textbooks as part of the evolutionary process? There are no distinctions made that they are individual and unrelated fields in textbooks I have come across. It is only in discourse that this distinction is harped.

So is the textbook view incorrect and there needs to be changes made to distinguish the difference between the two? Or do textbook authors believe that there is no real difference between the two? What seems to be happening is that there is an inconsistency in distinguishing the two apart in print and in discourse. Now if I had to choose which to trust, the claim of an anonymous person on a forum or what is in print in a biology textbook. I would go with the textbook.

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.

I’m not doubting the grace of God, only the natural process of life’s origin as we can test whether such a process alone can create life without invoking God. A perfect example of this is when in 1967 Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg synthesized for the first time his own version of the biologically active PhiX174 virus. To say that such a feat required no intelligent guidance is not only to mock Kornberg’s intellect it would also be a slap in the face of all logic!

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?

I suppose telling you that the water cycle is a testable and verifiable process in which God has created and put in place that is bound by the laws of physics wouldn’t do any good then?

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.

Then perhaps you have a greater faith than I that life can arise via natural conditions. And of course I’m not doubting the usefulness or capability of science -only it’s exclusive conclusion of naturalism.

muaxiong · Jul 6, 2006

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.

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

Yep, that is the usual response.

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.

That wasnt really the answer I was looking for more along the lines of testable evidence for abiogenesis.

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

That is what I have been repeatedly told but I would hope that that is not the case that one is not dependent on the other! If Im not mistaken for natural selection to take place doesnt there need to be something to select from?

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?

Not the soon to be defunct RNA world hypothesis! As much as I enjoy novel new ideas on how life originated it is IMO simply another crackpot excuse to avoid the more obvious conclusion of life having been designed. Since this thread is about abiogenesis why dont you present the evidences on the topic so we can discuss.

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.

That is quite an assumption, however Id much rather prefer your presentation of the evidence as oppose to simply asserting its existence.

despite evidence on the contrary?

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

Not really, just evidence that intelligent guidance was needed something in which we can experimentally verify.

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?

Because first and foremost the word of God says so as in Romans 1:20. One of my favorite verses from scripture that this is perhaps the verse from Psalms 19:1 Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

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.

I would hope that your answer doesnt just stop there, anyone can say that anything is false simply because they dont agree with it it is however another thing to back up why they think it is false, I hope you are up to that. But since you claim that my statement is false and unaffirmability is a test for falsehood what evidence(s) can be affirmed that life originated on its own.

- 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 would much rather readily accept the dictionary definition of theory as being an assumption based on limited information or knowledge, but the objective of the thread is not in defining the meaning of a theory. So again, please present your evidence to justify your accusation that my claim is outright false, if not I will continue to conclude that there is no such evidence.

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.

Thats always the usual recommendation, but would you agree that I understand what evolution is then by saying that it is: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. H. Curtis, N. Barnes - Biology 5th Edition, 1989 p974. If it is the same as your understanding of evolution then your assumption that I am ignorant of evolution is unsubstantiated, if it isnt then you need to tell the folks at talkorigins about this as that is where the quote is used in defining evolution.

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 wasnt what was said - there was nothing said about where life came from, only the questioning of why it is simply assumed to have taken place it is quite clear that I made no attempt in marrying the two.

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.

Just a simple observation but like I said, hey what do I know. But seriously if the origin of life really has nothing to do with evolution, then are we allowing for the origin of life by supernatural means? After all, logically there are only two ways in which it could have come to be either by itself or with direct intelligent intervention. But according to the precepts of science the super natural is not allowed so then the only alternative is life evolved.

I dont know about you but I see an obvious contradiction in the claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. After since science excludes the supernatural then its only option is that life did evolved. So the question remains is the origin of life a part of the evolutionary process or not? The claim that it is scientific but that it is not a part evolution because scientists have not yet figured or discovered testable evidence on how it happened is simply, IMO, a copout. In fact I would go as far to say that it takes much more faith to believe science at this conjecture than it does in that life was intelligently designed since we ourselves can experimentally confirm this.

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.

As you are to yours. There is only one reality that I know of, though there are several interpretations that are revered to be true. The problem then lies not in the dogma of the interpretation but how it is reflected in reality the question then is there any truth at all that life arose from non life without intelligent guidance? So far the answer is obvious a solid nay. And oh yes, having responded to the topic (although not saying much) does show that you are concern otherwise why would you have wasted your time?

muaxiong · Jul 6, 2006

shernren said:
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.

Very imaginative shernren, however this has nothing to do with the objective of the thread. And besides life as we all know is very much carbon based perfectly suited for the conditions of earth so the notion of silicon based lifeforms coexisting with carbon lifeforms is nothing more than science fiction. The simple fact is in the same conditions that would allow carbon lifeforms to originate silicon lifeforms cannot. Basic chemistry tells us that silicon atoms have a bigger atomic radius making them not only larger but also heavier in mass and therefore more difficult to synthesize into biochemical systems which require double and triple bonds that silicon atoms have difficulty forming . Another major problem is that long chains of hydrogen and silicon compounds are highly reactive with water and would immediately break down upon contact. As for methane consuming gasbags, highly improbable - except maybe on star trek.

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.

If by metabolic chemistry you mean carbohydrate metabolism, lipid m, amino acid m, protein m, peptide m, etc. then I totally agree, it is the origin of such mechanisms of metabolism that is in question – that is whether the are the product of stochastic chemistry or intelligent guidance.

We can therefore deduce certain things about what the common ancestor of life must have been like.

Who is this “we” we are talking about? Only evolutionists begin and end with such a narrow minded conclusion. The creationist however conclude that it is the result of a common designer – someone which “we” both know to exist, the common ancestor however is a long shot in the dark.

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.

We don’t know that. There is no evidence that any life form descended from any ancient ancestor other than from organisms which look and function in the same way. It is simply assumed to have – but haven’t you heard of the old saying that when you assume something you not only make an ass- out of –u- but also -me? Assumptions are not evidence. So is there evidence of this first life and how it could have originated by naturalistic means.

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.

Sure, for all we know could even be the result of the sneeze of the invisible pink unicorn! LOL But come now which of these methods is the most logical and probable within the naturalistic constraints of science. As for life’s origination on Neptune highly unlikely given the conditions of Neptune. And being sent back in time? Be serious the contradiction is so clear - how does anyone who is logical and knows anything about science present such an absurd an obfuscation as that?

Mallon · Jul 6, 2006

muaxiong said:
If the origin of life is a separate and unrelated field which has nothing to do with evolution then why is it included in biology textbooks as part of the evolutionary process? There are no distinctions made that they are individual and unrelated fields in textbooks I have come across.

Which textbooks, specifically? None of the biology textbooks I've studied from in my years of high school and university even discuss abiogenesis.

So is the textbook view incorrect and there needs to be changes made to distinguish the difference between the two? Or do textbook authors believe that there is no real difference between the two?

If a section on abiogenesis is included in a textbook chapter on evolution, I would imagine it has more to do with maximizing page space than anything else. Abiogenesis is still a relatively new field to science (which is why it hasn't yet come forward with a lot of answers), so there isn't a whole lot to say about it that would warrant a chapter on its own. But because the topic is RELATED to (but independent of) evolution, it may be included in that chapter for that reason.

A perfect example of this is when in 1967 Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg synthesized for the first time his own version of the biologically active PhiX174 virus. To say that such a feat required no intelligent guidance is not only to mock Kornbergs intellect it would also be a slap in the face of all logic!

Given the self-organizing capacity of life's simple biomolecules and the right environment, however, it might take no more than bringing the two together to produce life. This is what scientists are trying to discover now. Figuring out the problem may be difficult; but actually replicating it might not be (again, given the right conditions).

I suppose telling you that the water cycle is a testable and verifiable process in which God has created and put in place that is bound by the laws of physics wouldnt do any good then?

Works for me! I feel the same way about evolution, and all the world's natural processes, for that matter. That argument doesn't hold much water with the creationists, however. They want God working miracles at all times in order to keep them assured of His divine presence.

Then perhaps you have a greater faith than I that life can arise via natural conditions. And of course Im not doubting the usefulness or capability of science -only its exclusive conclusion of naturalism.

You're free to come up with your own method of investigation that incorporates the supernatural, if you like. Just don't call it science. And be sure to let us know how it works!

muaxiong · Jul 6, 2006

Mallon said:
Which textbooks, specifically? None of the biology textbooks I've studied from in my years of high school and university even discuss abiogenesis.

The college textbook Understanding Biology by Raven and Johnson devotes an entire chapter (a mere 9 pages) on the origin of life making no distinction as being a separate field from evolution. Here is a quote of two paragraphs from page 69 of the book which affirms this view:

A process of chemical evolution involving coacervate microdrops of this sort may have taken place before the origin of life. The early oceans must have contained untold numbers of this mircrodrops billions in a spoonful, each one forming spontaneously, persisting for a while and then dispersing.. Some of the droplets would be chance have contained amino acids with side groups that were better able than the others to catalyze growth promoting reactions. These droplets would have survived longer than the others because the persistence of both progen and lipd coacervates is greatly increased when they carry out metabolic reactions such as glucose degradation (breakdown) and when they are actively growing.

Over millions of years the complex microdrops that were better able to incorporate molecules and energy from the lifeless oceans of the early earth would have tend to persist more than the others [blah blah blah]. Some of the mircordrops by chance rearrangement of their parts, acquired the means to facilitate the transfer of this ability from parent to offspring. Those microdrops gained the property of heredity, and life begun.

If a section on abiogenesis is included in a textbook chapter on evolution, I would imagine it has more to do with maximizing page space than anything else.

Far from it, it is included because it is a part of evolution if you read any text book you will see evolution as being responsible for the first life as well as being credited with everything else after that to include the most complex biological structures known to man simply because the more obvious is unscientific. It is however adamantly denied, but no where does it make any distinctions that they are separate fields in fact the above text book uses the chapter as a foundation for "understanding of biology" as it is titled.

Abiogenesis is still a relatively new field to science (which is why it hasn't yet come forward with a lot of answers), so there isn't a whole lot to say about it that would warrant a chapter on its own. But because the topic is RELATED to (but independent of) evolution, it may be included in that chapter for that reason.

I wouldnt hold my breath, as far as answers go the more science find out about the structure of life the less they will understand how it originated without confusing the difference between knowing how something functions and how it got to be. Not that we should abandon the field, but that the answers are being looked for in the wrong place and with the wrong presuppositions! Related to but independent of? Another obfuscation of terms I suppose, if anything evolution is dependent on abiogenesis but its relationship is denied - after all in order to mutate and differentiate there needs something to mutate.

Given the self-organizing capacity of life's simple biomolecules and the right environment, however, it might take no more than bringing the two together to produce life. This is what scientists are trying to discover now. Figuring out the problem may be difficult; but actually replicating it might not be (again, given the right conditions).

Self organizing what? The bringing together of exactly what would be my contention. Am I to conclude that you believe that life is possible without intelligent guidance if given the right conditions? If this is your stand then perhaps presenting some of those evidences and right conditions to support the assertion that those condition will in fact allow for the self organization of life lest it become no other than wishful thinking.

Works for me! I feel the same way about evolution, and all the world's natural processes, for that matter. That argument doesn't hold much water with the creationists, however. They want God working miracles at all times in order to keep them assured of His divine presence.

Youve misunderstood me, even creationists who are versed in science understand that rain is part of the water cycle which again is testable, observable, and that God can intervene at anytime to affect how it operates. Now what natural cycle or process is the origin of life a part of, more importantly is this process testable observable?

You're free to come up with your own method of investigation that incorporates the supernatural, if you like. Just don't call it science. And be sure to let us know how it works!

Not what I am saying at all, the invocation of the supernatural isnt necessary when intelligence is a part of the equation now here are two questions that you can answer to clarify what I am getting at. Which of the following formulas are scientific and which one is not? And which of the following is put into practice by every engineer/scientist at this very moment and which exists only on paper and in wishful thinking?

1. m + t + e + s = machines/biochemical machines

2. m + t + e + i = machines/biochemical machines

m = matter, t = tempus or time, e = energy, s = stochastic processes, i = intellect, information, mind etc.

Mallon · Jul 6, 2006

muaxiong said:
Here is a quote of two paragraphs from page 69 of the book which affirms this view:

Out of curiosity, do the authors support any of their assertions with scientific references at the end of the chapter?

Far from it, it is included because it is a part of evolution if you read any text book you will see evolution as being responsible for the first life as well as being credited with everything else after that to include the most complex biological structures known to man simply because the more obvious is unscientific.

Well... by definition, appeal to the supernatural IS unscientific! Get over it. I'm so tired of hearing fellow Christians complaining about the definition of science, wanting to have it changed, and then getting angry about, say, gays wanting to redefine marriage. If you don't like the limitations of science, then invent your own method of discovery!

It is however adamantly denied, but no where does it make any distinctions that they are separate fields in fact the above text book uses the chapter as a foundation for "understanding of biology" as it is titled.

Well, I agree with you here. Abiogenesis and biological evolution should be distinguished from one another. Thankfully, your Raven and Johnson text seems to be out of print and not widely circulated.

I wouldnt hold my breath, as far as answers go the more science find out about the structure of life the less they will understand how it originated without confusing the difference between knowing how something functions and how it got to be.

I'm not sure what history this statement is based on.

Related to but independent of? Another obfuscation of terms I suppose

Do you not believe the study of atom formation via nuclear fussion/fission to be independent-yet-related to, say, chemical kinetics? Same thing for abiogenesis and evolution. You may not like it, because it isn't as easy a strawman to knock down. But this way, you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater by pleaing argumentum ignorantium with regards to abiogenesis.

if anything evolution is dependent on abiogenesis but its relationship is denied - after all in order to mutate and differentiate there needs something to mutate.

There's a patently false statement. Evolution occurs regardless of whether life was miraculously created ex nihilo or via abiogenesis.

Self organizing what?

RNA, for example. More here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set

Am I to conclude that you believe that life is possible without intelligent guidance if given the right conditions?

Again, given the self-organizing nature of some of life's basic biomolecules -- yes. Do I think life also may have started via some miracle sparked by God? Yes. But again, I won't endanger my faith by assuming that the origins of life cannot be explained by science.

If this is your stand then perhaps presenting some of those evidences and right conditions to support the assertion that those condition will in fact allow for the self organization of life lest it become no other than wishful thinking.

These starter references could probably articulate self-organization better than I ever could:

M. Eigen and P. Schuster, The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization (Berlin: Springer, 1979).

M. Eigen, "Selforganization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecules," Naturwissenschaften 58 (1971): 465-523.

Cairns-Smith, A. G. Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life. ISBN 0-52123-312-7

Lindahl, T., 1993. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA, Nature 362(6422):709715.

I've come across a book or two written on the subject as well (sorry, don't have the titles handy).

Now what natural cycle or process is the origin of life a part of, more importantly is this process testable observable?

Is it testable? Yes. We've been testing and modifying the theory accordingly for years. Is it observable? No. We have not yet been able to identify life springing from non-life.
Mind you, black holes weren't observable at one time... until we started looking.

Which of the following formulas are scientific and which one is not? And which of the following is put into practice by every engineer/scientist at this very moment and which exists only on paper and in wishful thinking?

1. m + t + e + s = machines/biochemical machines

2. m + t + e + i = machines/biochemical machines

m = matter, t = tempus or time, e = energy, s = stochastic processes, i = intellect, information, mind etc.

I'm not falling for that one (I've seen Kent Hovind use this before). Manmade machines and biochemical "machines" are not equal. Synthetic machines are incapable of imperfect reproduction.

steen · Jul 6, 2006

muaxiong said:
Yep, that is the usual response.

That should be a hint that this IS the answer.

That wasnt really the answer I was looking for more along the lines of testable evidence for abiogenesis.

Well, the chemists are more into that. My background is in the Biological Sciences. Talk.origin does have a website or two, but they are kind of superficial.

That is what I have been repeatedly told but I would hope that that is not the case that one is not dependent on the other!

They aren't. Abiogenesis doesn't care what happens to life. Evolution doesn't care where life came from. they are separate fields of study. They don't overlap in any meaningful way.

If Im not mistaken for natural selection to take place doesnt there need to be something to select from?

Yes, at least two different alleles, so one can be selected.

Not the soon to be defunct RNA world hypothesis!

How is it "soon to be defunct"?

As much as I enjoy novel new ideas on how life originated it is IMO simply another crackpot excuse to avoid the more obvious conclusion of life having been designed.

If it is "more obvious," then the evidence for such a design would be more fitting all the data. I have yet to see this, but you seem to have some insight knowledge. Could you please provide the scientific evidence for this?

Since this thread is about abiogenesis why dont you present the evidences on the topic so we can discuss.

As I mentioned, it is not really my field, so all I could provide would be the result of web-searches but with no real comprehension of the scientific details behind it. Now, if you asked about biology and evolution, then I can load you up. However, I HAVE seen scientific data on Abiogenesis, and as such, the claim of "very little to no evidence that life self originated" is false. Clearly, there is quite a bit of research data out there.

That is quite an assumption, however Id much rather prefer your presentation of the evidence as oppose to simply asserting its existence.

Well, for MY ability to provide evidence, I will refer you to talk.origin. Understand that I don't have a good grip on the science of Abiogenesis, and as such really am not able to provide detailed veracity of those pages:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Not really, just evidence that intelligent guidance was needed something in which we can experimentally verify.

Oh? Where has this been done? I have never seen any Scientific Evidence for the need for a designer or intelligent guidance. I have seen lots of CLAIMS to that extend, but that's all. So please provide some form of Scientific Reference to this, thanks.

Because first and foremost the word of God says so as in Romans 1:20. One of my favorite verses from scripture that this is perhaps the verse from Psalms 19:1 Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

This is not Scientific Evidence.

I would hope that your answer doesnt just stop there, anyone can say that anything is false simply because they dont agree with it it is however another thing to back up why they think it is false, I hope you are up to that. But since you claim that my statement is false and unaffirmability is a test for falsehood what evidence(s) can be affirmed that life originated on its own.

Rather, you claimed that there was no "no empirical evidence" that life could originate on itself. I already provided a link to such evidence, and as such, yes your claim IS false.

I would much rather readily accept the dictionary definition of theory as being an assumption based on limited information or knowledge,

That would have absolutely nothing to do with a Scientific Theory. So you might "want" to adopt a non-scientific definition of the word, but then it also is utterly irrelevant and pointless to any discussion about science.

As such, it seems like you are rather self-searingly trying to create a strawman here. You can certainly do that, but it would have no interest or relevance to anything I have said or others have said here. I can certainly define leafs of the Bible as "Maple leafs." It wouldn't have any relevance or meaning in any discussion here, but yes, if I "wanted" to, I certainly could. But when adopting such irrelevant and distorting definitions deliberately then you really can't be taken serious in any way.

but the objective of the thread is not in defining the meaning of a theory.

Indeed, as we already have a definition for what a Theory is when talking about Science. Now, if you want to use some revisionist linguistics definition, then you pretty much are on your own and with no relevance for anybody or anything.

So again, please present your evidence to justify your accusation that my claim is outright false, if not I will continue to conclude that there is no such evidence.

I did. I provided a link to the talk.origin site showing scientific, imperial evidence with links for documentations. That makes your claim of "no empirical evidence" false as I stated.

Thats always the usual recommendation, but would you agree that I understand what evolution is then by saying that it is: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. H. Curtis, N. Barnes - Biology 5th Edition, 1989 p974. If it is the same as your understanding of evolution then your assumption that I am ignorant of evolution is unsubstantiated,

Incorrect. You have posted a cut-and-paste job but your claims generally directly contradicts what your quoted evidence says.

So that fully justifies me in suggesting that you actually learn what Evolution is. because you sure are unable to carry a discussion about the science related to Evolution, showing that yes you do need to learn more about it if you want to discuss it and critique it. As I suggested.

if it isnt then you need to tell the folks at talkorigins about this as that is where the quote is used in defining evolution.

The quote is correct. The claims you make about Evolution are not. SO just because you can cut-and-paste the definition doesn't mean that you understand it.

I would suggest that if suggesting to you to learn about evolution is "always the usual recommendation," That there then might be a point to it. You obviously still don't know that the process of evolution is not dependent on where life actually came from. And the definition you provided indeed holds this to be true, as it doesn't mention anything about the origin of life or alleles.

That wasnt what was said - there was nothing said about where life came from, only the questioning of why it is simply assumed to have taken place it is quite clear that I made no attempt in marrying the two.

There is no reason to know where it came from, as no evolution occurs until there are at least two copies of an allele. After all, that IS what the definition you posted is all about. There is nothing in that definition that changes if life came from source (a), (b), or (c). So the origin of life is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the Scientific theory of Evolution. That is inherent in what you cut-and-pasted from the talk.origin site. Yet, you still seem to not understand this, further validating my suggestion that you learn more about what Evolution actually is.

Just a simple observation but like I said, hey what do I know. But seriously if the origin of life really has nothing to do with evolution, then are we allowing for the origin of life by supernatural means?

We could. It wouldn't be science, but Evolution doesn't care where life came from. Even if Abiogenesis was shown to have arisen directly by Godly creation, the scientific evidence associated with Evolution would be the same. So it IS utterly irrelevant how life arose, for the purpose of the Scientific theory of Evolution. That Scientific theory allows for ANY and ALL ways you can imagine for life to have originated.

After all, you cut-and-pasted the definition. Where in that definition was the origin of life a factor? Did you see it? I sure didn't. Now, if you are discussing the science of Abiogenesis, then it becomes an issue. But for the Scientific theory of Evolution, yes it doesn't matter a bit where life came from.

After all, logically there are only two ways in which it could have come to be either by itself or with direct intelligent intervention.

If you talk about Abiogenesis, yes. If you talk about Evolution, then it doesn't even concern itself with how life came to be.

But according to the precepts of science the super natural is not allowed so then the only alternative is life evolved.

Science says that it cannot examine supernatural events, it doesn't exclude them. But as Evolution doesn't seek to investigate where life came from, Evolution doesn't care about how you feel life came to be anyway. So it is not exploring any supernatural events.

I dont know about you but I see an obvious contradiction in the claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

And that seems to be the issue you are hung up on. Another reason why my suggestion that you learn more about Evolution is valid. Even the definition you yourself provided shows that Abiogenesis is utterly irrelevant.

After since science excludes the supernatural then its only option is that life did evolved.

Ah, life didn't come to be by Evolution. Evolution is only about how life changes. So your claim is utterly irrelevant to evolution, further showing your need to actually learn what Evolution is.

So the question remains is the origin of life a part of the evolutionary process or not?

Nope. I am not sure how many times this can be explained to you, especially as the definition you provided yourself shows this not to be the case. You keep trying to associate the two when they are not connected. Either you can understand and learn this, or you can't. The rest of us really can't do anything more about this. Evolution is not Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis is not Evolution. This has now been explained to death. there is nothing new to say about this, either you accept it per even your own evidence or you don't. If you don't, then your claims about Evolution will continue to be false and irrelevant. You WANTING them to be connected doesn't make it so, after all.

The claim that it is scientific but that it is not a part evolution because scientists have not yet figured or discovered testable evidence on how it happened is simply, IMO, a copout. In fact I would go as far to say that it takes much more faith to believe science at this conjecture than it does in that life was intelligently designed since we ourselves can experimentally confirm this.

You keep using the Word "Evolution" when talking about Abiogenesis. I suggest you learn some more about Evolution so you can avoid such mistakes. Again, 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.

As you are to yours. There is only one reality that I know of,

My recommendation still stands.

though there are several interpretations that are revered to be true. The problem then lies not in the dogma of the interpretation but how it is reflected in reality the question then is there any truth at all that life arose from non life without intelligent guidance? So far the answer is obvious a solid nay.

Another false claim or even misrepresentation. There is 'truth" to the fact that research into Abiogenesis exists.

And oh yes, having responded to the topic (although not saying much) does show that you are concern otherwise why would you have wasted your time?

I am concerned with accuracy about claims of science.

theFijian · Jul 7, 2006

Poke said:
while 10 of 10 Creationists don't believe in abiogenese (sic)

Creationists do believe in chemical abiogenesis, unless you're suggesting there was already life on earth before God started creating.

What I want to know is why we should be so keen to deny that God would work through natural processes, WHy do we need a scientific crutch? Why does there need to be an unexplained (and by definition unexplainable) gap in the natural world that we must force a supernatural event into?

As it is, I'm rather disappointed that after a promising start this thread has just become the usual bi-partisan posturing. The OP seemed to indicate that there was a genuine intent to learn about the opposing viewpoint, but I should know better by now I guess.

Proselyte · Jul 7, 2006

A Biologist-Creationist friend was telling me his thoughts on abiogenesis. He said amino acids were created, but nothing has gone on beyond that.

Is this the case?

Jadis40 · Jul 7, 2006

Proselyte said:
A Biologist-Creationist friend was telling me his thoughts on abiogenesis. He said amino acids were created, but nothing has gone on beyond that.

Is this the case?

Actually, there was life on the earth shortly after it was formed 4.4 billion years ago - it was during the pre-cambrian, during the archean eon, which spans from roughly 3800 million years to 2500 million years.

I dug this up on wikipedia -

Archean Life

Fossils of cyanobacterial mats (stromatolites) are found throughout the Archean--becoming especially common late in the eon--while a few probable bacterial fossils are known from chert beds.[5] In addition to the domain Bacteria (once known as Eubacteria), microfossils of the extremophilic domain Archaea have also been identified.
Life was probably present throughout the Archean, but may have been limited to simple non-nucleated single-celled organisms, called Prokaryota (and formerly known as Monera); there are no known eurkaryotic fossils, though they might have evolved during the Archean and simply not left any fossils.[6] However, no fossil evidence yet exists for ultramicroscopic intracellular organisms such as viruses.

Proselyte · Jul 7, 2006

Jadis40 said:
Actually, there was life on the earth shortly after it was formed 4.4 billion years ago - it was during the pre-cambrian, during the archean eon, which spans from roughly 3800 million years to 2500 million years.

I dug this up on wikipedia -

Archean Life

Fossils of cyanobacterial mats (stromatolites) are found throughout the Archean--becoming especially common late in the eon--while a few probable bacterial fossils are known from chert beds.[5] In addition to the domain Bacteria (once known as Eubacteria), microfossils of the extremophilic domain Archaea have also been identified.
Life was probably present throughout the Archean, but may have been limited to simple non-nucleated single-celled organisms, called Prokaryota (and formerly known as Monera); there are no known eurkaryotic fossils, though they might have evolved during the Archean and simply not left any fossils.[6] However, no fossil evidence yet exists for ultramicroscopic intracellular organisms such as viruses.

Sorry, I should have clarified that. He said abiogenesis yielding amino acids has been replicated in the lab, but no living organisms have been derived yet. Looking for more along those lines.

Thanks.

shernren · Jul 7, 2006

As it is, I'm rather disappointed that after a promising start this thread has just become the usual bi-partisan posturing. The OP seemed to indicate that there was a genuine intent to learn about the opposing viewpoint, but I should know better by now I guess.

Indeed.

“A process of chemical evolution involving coacervate microdrops of this sort may have taken place before the origin of life. The early oceans must have contained untold numbers of this mircrodrops – billions in a spoonful, each one forming spontaneously, persisting for a while and then dispersing.. Some of the droplets would be chance have contained amino acids with side groups that were better able than the others to catalyze growth promoting reactions. These droplets would have survived longer than the others because the persistence of both progen and lipd coacervates is greatly increased when they carry out metabolic reactions such as glucose degradation (breakdown) and when they are actively growing.

Over millions of years the complex microdrops that were better able to incorporate molecules and energy from the lifeless oceans of the early earth would have tend to persist more than the others … [blah blah blah]…. Some of the mircordrops by chance rearrangement of their parts, acquired the means to facilitate the transfer of this ability from parent to offspring. Those microdrops gained the property of heredity, and life begun.”

(emphasis added) I'm very curious as to whether or not your textbook goes on to describe the emergence of multicellular life, tetrapods, or australopithecines as chemical evolution. The term is a precise one meant to denote the abiogenetic process as something qualitatively different from the ensuing evolution that derived from life thus formed.

1. m + t + e + s = machines/biochemical machines

2. m + t + e + i = machines/biochemical machines

m = matter, t = tempus or time, e = energy, s = stochastic processes, i = intellect, information, mind etc.

Come on, God didn't make nature crippled. Natural processes can create working nuclear reactors and radioisotopic containment for millions of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_reactor , why not life?

theFijian · Jul 8, 2006

Proselyte said:
...but no living organisms...

Can we get a definition of 'living organism'? Apologies if I already missed it. What makes an organism alive, or not?

Just Curious

Poke

Guest

Miserere mei, Domine

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Poke

Guest

John 3:16

John 3:16

John 3:16

John 3:16

Senior Veteran

John 3:16

Senior Veteran

Lie Detector

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency