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.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 140 (568147)
07-04-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution ...
FYI: No you're not.
evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another.
That and the multiplication table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 140 (568148)
07-04-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
But not for want of the evolutionists explaining it to them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 140 (568150)
07-04-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:08 PM


but he point is that they were not simply studying how animals change over time...they were also looking at how the first living things got started on the planet and so in that sense they very much discussed both topics under the same subject.
Being interested in two different topics is not the same as "discussing both topics under the same subject", whatever that means.
For example, I am interested in the two different topics of abiogenesis and evolution. But I do not "discuss both topics under the same subject".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:08 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 140 (568152)
07-04-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:00 PM


If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that...
Don't be silly. Of course they would.
its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.
Just because the same people believe in two different things doesn't make them the same thing.
For example, I believe both in aardvarks and in peanut butter. But this doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM Peg has not replied

glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(2)
Message 35 of 140 (568156)
07-04-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:08 PM


intuitive linking
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
but he point is that they were not simply studying how animals change over time...they were also looking at how the first living things got started on the planet and so in that sense they very much discussed both topics under the same subject.
I think the quotes and arguments you've given only show that anyone interested in evolution would also have a keen interest in abiogenesis, as would anyone devoted to special creation. Evolutionary theory glaringly omits any treatment of the subject of abiogensis.
On the other hand, your average person instinctively associates the two anyway, having never heard Creationists' implications or evolutionists' complaints; and regardless of whether he's religious or not. I think Creationists in general link abiogenesis to evolution in an intuitive manner too, rather than by examining evidence like you've presented. For some, it may also be a case of "guilt by association", in the sense that both threaten the special creation of single or multiple kinds. In any case, a basic review of evolutionary theory reveals that it acts only upon existing living organisms.
It's quite conceivable that selective processes, in some shape or form, might apply to some part(s) of the abiogenetic process. (Chemical selection?) And this begs the question: At what point in the genesis of life did abiogenesis end and evolutionary processes begin? Or was there a gray area when both came into play?
My guess is that there was indeed a gray area. But my only defense of this opinion is that so few things in life turn out to be black or white. The magic moment when abiogenesis served up life upon which evolution could act, if it's ever estimated, might become like the estimates of when a human fetus becomes a viable being: highly contentious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM glowby has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 140 (568200)
07-04-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by glowby
07-04-2010 4:01 PM


Re: intuitive linking
glowby writes:
I think the quotes and arguments you've given only show that anyone interested in evolution would also have a keen interest in abiogenesis, as would anyone devoted to special creation. Evolutionary theory glaringly omits any treatment of the subject of abiogensis.
you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
So this is the point im making....creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution. I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.
I agree its a highly contentious issue and will remain as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by glowby, posted 07-04-2010 4:01 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 44 by glowby, posted 07-05-2010 3:26 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 3:34 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 07-05-2010 5:58 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:27 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 140 (568203)
07-04-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nwr
07-04-2010 12:18 AM


nwr writes:
That's another strange comment. Creationists themselves believe in abiogenesis, though they insist it occurred as divine intervention rather than as a natural process.
they are not really too similar. Creationists believe that the beginning of life was the 'creation' of living things in a fully developed form
everything from bacteria to dinosaurs to humans were created fully developed as opposed to gradually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 12:18 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 10:07 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 140 (568205)
07-04-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluescat48
07-04-2010 1:26 AM


bluescat writes:
But that is the fault of the creationists, not the evolutionists. How can evolutionists be blamed for the ignorance of the creationists?
what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'
If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 07-04-2010 1:26 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 9:55 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:20 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 3:11 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 07-06-2010 2:07 PM Peg has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 140 (568206)
07-04-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
Why do you keep quoting Richard Dawkins like he is the Evolutionists Pope? He is one guy with an opinion. What he says has nothing to do with the reality that TOE and abiogenesis are 2 different but related subjects. No matter what you say or what you quote from Richard Dawkins that is the truth.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 140 (568207)
07-04-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


Again Dawkins.
He is not our Pope.
"The Selfish Gene" is not the Theory of Evolution.
Your comments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 41 of 140 (568208)
07-04-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
07-04-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Breathed
Modulous writes:
Darwin even referenced a Creator in some editions...
darwin was a confused man
he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.
You only need to look at the letters he wrote to different associates to see that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 9:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 10:02 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:16 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2010 1:29 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 07-05-2010 3:00 PM Peg has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 42 of 140 (568210)
07-04-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
Peg writes:
he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.
It is better to be unsure, than to be damned sure but wrong.

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

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 43 of 140 (568214)
07-04-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:47 PM


Peg writes:
they are not really too similar. Creationists believe that the beginning of life was the 'creation' of living things in a fully developed form
everything from bacteria to dinosaurs to humans were created fully developed as opposed to gradually.
However, abiogenesis still means life from non-life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:47 PM Peg has not replied

glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 44 of 140 (568268)
07-05-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


The Discovering Institute
Peg writes:
you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
That's quite understandable, since the ToE literally has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and you communicate often with very knowledgeable evolutionists. If an evolutionist were to say otherwise, he'd be demonstrating that he has a very poor grasp of the theory.
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
I think that if you can overcome your intuitive association of the two sciences, you might better notice that these are typically separated into different breaths, as well as into different disciplines. It should be no surprise when they are mentioned in the same paragraph, as they are both concerned with life.
Mr. Dawkins the evolutionist may also have strong opinions about who is going to win the World Cup. But that doesn't mean he's implying his favorite team succeeds through natural selection. Abiogenesis is about life. Evolution is about life. The link between the two is more than incidental, I agree. However, the two scientific disciplines run on distinctly different turf at this time.
...creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
I'd like some clarification, please. Are you talking YECs, OECs or both? Do you mean no more debate about the abiogenesis issue between Creationists and evolutionists, or some broader truce? Between who and about what?
Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution.
You just might be in the best place on the web to find out what evolutionists really think about that separation. I agree with the others that have chimed in. They are separate.
I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.
Taking all of Darwin's writings into account, he appears to believe in special creation. He's an evolutionist, a Creationist, and someone who would be very interested in investigations into abiogenesis.
but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
I agree. Evolutionary scientists need a good PR guy. Unfortunately, they seem to have neither the funding nor the stomach for such activities. Science is accustomed to letting its discoveries stand or fall on their own merit. Evolution has earned its stripes well. However its "advertising" is mostly limited to research papers, encyclopedias, and textbooks.
Perhaps some wealthy benefactors might grant some funds to establish an Institution for coercing the public into Discovering the Truth about evolution; and researchers there could find ways to make people doubt the truth about Bible stories. We could call it the Discovering Institute!
I think only religious folks would be taken seriously by religious folks on this issue. Many Creationists take it for granted that evolutionists are liars. Initiatives for informing the public of the realities of the debate will have to come from Christian organizations. It might not be too difficult. I know quite a few Christians who are quite fed up with being associated with Creationists' "misunderstandings" about science.
to creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.
I would agree if you had said, "...the only beginning that science offers." Evolutionists seem to be the eternal whipping boys of Creationists, and in this case it's especially unfair because today evolution and abiogenesis are indeed separate fields of study.
Yes, abiogenesis is the only reasonable explanation that science offers for explaining the start of life at this time. It seems that Creationists aren't happy with science's progress (or lack of it) in this field. Perhaps they will one day go to debate the issues at AvCforum.net, where Abos meet Creos...
Edited by glowby, : Added a winky face at the end...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 140 (568271)
07-05-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
They also say gravity is the explanation for things falling down. Yet you don't say that's part of evolution, now do you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 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