Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

In the 'I need an answer' thread I made the point to the OP that the reason why creationists are opposed to the theory of evolution is because they cannot separate 'abiogenesis from evolution' because when the ToE was introduced, abiogenesis was very much a part of the theory. Some have commented that I am wrong on that point and abiogenesis was NEVER a part of the theory of evolution. I would say that it was most certainly taken for granted as being the cataclyst to evolution and there is evidence in the writings of Darwin and others which proves this to be the case.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 reasoned that if animals were in fact the result of special creation, then there is no reason why there should be more varieties within a single species, as if a species should not change if it were specially created. Chpt 2 page 55 under subject 'Species of large genera variable' he wrote:
On the other hand, if we look at each species as a special act of creation, there is no apparent reason why more varieties should occur in a group having many species, than in one having few.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."While its true he didnt specifically mention abiogenesis in 'origin of the species' he did consider it to be a very real possibility for the origin of life as is seen by various letters he sent to other evolutionists. 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.

Thread copied here from the Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

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. "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. 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.

Even if " Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject", so what?One of the major differences between science and dogma is that science changes as new information and data is gathered. Even if there was a time when the two terms were used interchangeably (and so far you have not show that) there is no reason that as understanding grew that the two terms should not take on distinct meanings. Or is it because Creationists have never been able to find any evidence to support "Special Creation?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Rejecting special creation outright is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".For example, I reject special creation outright but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject". Holding the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".For example, I hold the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject". Considering abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".For example, I consider abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject". Accepting the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogensis are "one subject".For example, I accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

Just to be clear here, i am not debating evolution OR abiogensis.I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution hence why creationists can't separate the two.the Miller—Urey experiment was designed to show how abiogenesis was supposed to have occured (although they didnt produce life) and even Richard Dawkins 'The selfish gene' has several pages describing abiogenesis as the means of how life originated on earth....so it seems that while the claim is made that evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and not dependent on each other, evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another.

Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can? Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact. There is overwhelming evidence that at one time there was no life on earth and now there is life on the earth. Abiogenesis happened.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Peg, I wonder who Darwin thought breathed that life into that primordial form?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If anything, the examples you give lend support to the view that early evolutionists distinguished between evolution and abiogenesis from the start. Or at least that is how I read them.

Hi jar, Because every time the terms are disproved they are then changed.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I covered that in Message 4 where I pointed out that: Edited by jar, : fix the attribution

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

because we like to go back to the beginning...and when you look back at the beginning of the ToE with all those early scientists talking about spontaneous generation, and archebiosis and now abiogeneis it is about life arising by pure chance without intervention You've just answered your own question. This comment is exactly why creationists are still opposed to 'evolution'
If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that....but the fact is that its not only about how animals change over time...its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.

Hi jar, welcome back. To say nothing of what is disproved and by whom.Any chance of picking up on the Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. thread? please?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

hi ICANT,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.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. He didnt touch on the subject to abiogenesis at all but he certainly did believe in chemical compounds coming to life in a soup so perhaps he had that in mind.

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.