Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 140 (567991)
07-03-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


In Origin of the Species Darwin rejected the idea of 'special creation' outright. In chpt 14 on Page 487 he wrote:
"As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation and by catastrophes;
He was talking about the origin of the varied species - not of life itself.
He was rejecting the notion that all species were created in their present form, not that there was no special creation.
He also held the view that all the life that existed descended from 'one primordial form' as opposed to many created forms for he wrote in his conclusion on Page 484
" 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."
"Into which life was first breathed."? Sounds like he was expressing that there was one original life, specially created (allusion to Genesis creation story) from which all species originate.
The above article from Pubmed Central shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution. German geologist Heinrich George Bronn who translated The Origin of Species in 1860 even added a chapter about how spontaneous generation fitted in with Darwin’s theory.
So it is quite true that those early evolutionists were in fact making such claims and this is why creationists were so opposed to their ideas.
So Darwin didn't call it 'descent with modification' he called it 'spontaneous generation'. As if it were different. Of course, it is true that if an account for the origin of life could be settled - it would complete the naturalistic account for the existence of life which I'm sure Darwin would be happy to find (as the quote suggests).
Nobody suggests they are unrelated in so far as natural history is concerned. It's just that disproving one, does not disprove the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 140 (568071)
07-04-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.
If you had argued that disproving the earth and all life were created in 6 days does not disprove that different languages came as an act of divine will...I'm sure you'd get some supporters.
Sure - undermining the supernatural origins of life, might undermine the credibility of the source that also suggests a supernatural origin of languages...and if you disprove the natural origins of life by demonstrating its impossibility, that might lower your confidence in other natural explanations...but it doesn't disprove other natural explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 140 (568074)
07-04-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:05 PM


Re: Breathed
I dont think we can honestly know what he was thinking here in terms of creation....it may just have been an expression to describe the first matter comming to life.
He said it elsewhere in the Origins too:
quote:
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one"
Darwin even referenced a Creator in some editions...
quote:
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 by the Creator.
From the second edition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:05 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 140 (568388)
07-05-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.
Wow - a nuanced view. Quite different from
quote:
If you look at his other comments in 'Origen of the Species' you see him clearly and very specifcally saying that he did NOT view life as being specially created.
Actually - he may have genuinely been unsure. Sometimes thinking it was specially created, perhaps sometimes adding in references to avoid offending, perhaps at other times rejecting the notion entirely.
darwin was a confused man
Perhaps.
Or maybe the man who tops a large number scientist's lists as being the greatest amongst them - cross disciplines, is a more complex person (with more nuanced views) than you have previously given him credit for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 58 of 140 (568552)
07-06-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
Depends on the creationist. You seem to be suggesting that they will get to page 15 and immediately forget page 12 was ever written. But that's a cynical view to have of creationists. I'd prefer to think they'd never read page 12 and they'd just look at page 15 and conclude your views (and their preconceptions) were right after all.
But those that read page 12 (aka the start of chapter 2), where Dawkins says what he will be doing in the rest of the chapter:
quote:
I will try to explain the great theory in a more general way than is customary, beginning with the time before evolution itself began.
{emphasis added} will hopefully understand him quite clearly.
He clearly states that he will begin with what happened before evolution had even started, clearly separating them. It is Dawkins' hypothesis that the principles of Darwin's theory of evolution can be taken to form a general theory of replicators competing for the resources required to replicate.
So yes, Dawkins believes that the explanation for the origin of life and its evolution will share some core principles (eg., cumulative selection) but he is very much of the opinion that the origin of life is a separate thing to its evolution.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024