Abiogenesis is evolution

[Bunyip]

This explains a lot to me. Thank you for answering the question. I see no reason to further debate you until you learn more on the subject. Good day to you sir and see you in other parts of the forum.

LOL. Clearly you are the one who needs to read up on the subject. These are really basic distinctions you appear unable to grasp.

 

[dust1n]

LOL. Clearly you are the one who needs to read up on the subject. These are really basic distinctions you appear unable to grasp.

Where are these basic distinctions?

 

[Sapiens]

The confusion between abiogenesis and evolution is a debating charade rather than meaningful discourse. Only someone with no real understanding of either confuse the two, and then only as a way to set up a strawman. Evolution is, at this juncture, well understood, abiogenesis is not, and may well never be. If you've an ax to grind against evolution but have neither the facts nor the smarts to debate it directly it is easy to conflate the spurious claim that abiogenesis and evolution are one and the same and the correct claim that we do not understand abiogensis, into a nonsensical syllogism that "proves" evolution wrong.

 

[Skwim]

The confusion between abiogenesis and evolution is a debating charade rather than meaningful discourse. Only someone with no real understanding of either confuse the two, and then only as a way to set up a strawman. Evolution is, at this juncture, well understood, abiogenesis is not, and may well never be. If you've an ax to grind against evolution but have neither the facts nor the smarts to debate it directly it is easy to conflate the spurious claim that abiogenesis and evolution are one and the same and the correct claim that we do not understand abiogensis, into a nonsensical syllogism that "proves" evolution wrong.

A person is almost driven to believe that after all has been said about the two no one except a true blockhead would continue to confuse them, leaving me to concluded that any more blather about the issue is just a ruse to annoy evolutionists---I don't think anyone here qualifies as a true blockhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't think.

 

[Sapiens]

A person is almost driven to believe that after all has been said about the two no one except a true blockhead would continue to confuse them, leaving me to concluded that any more blather about the issue is just a ruse to annoy evolutionists---I don't think anyone here qualifies as a true blockhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't think.

There we disagree (present company excluded), but rules prohibit my identifying them ... the forum has strict rules to protect the guilty.

 

[Bunyip]

Where are these basic distinctions?

Read the thread. Abiogenesis refers to the origins of life, evolution refers to how species change over time.

 

[Sapiens]

Read the thread. Abiogenesis refers to the origins of life, evolution refers to how species change over time.

I wonder how many times we have to repeat that?

 

[dust1n]

I wonder how many times we have to repeat that?

I don't know. I've yet to see it demonstrated. As far as I can find, natural selection and evolutionary drift are at play concerning self-replicating molecules before the "origins of life," if I understand that to be the first living thing. RNA isn't a "species." A "virus" isn't a living thing, yet it's hypothesized that they began being produced with the first 100 generations of life. It's not living, but evolutionary selection and drift are still working.

Saying...

Non-organic compound ------>Abiogensis, then Evolution ------>

Is an arbitrary distinction. It presumes things about evolution that might not necessarily be true.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know. I've yet to see it demonstrated. As far as I can find, natural selection and evolutionary drift are at play concerning self-replicating molecules before the "origins of life," if I understand that to be the first living thing. RNA isn't a "species." A "virus" isn't a living thing, yet it's hypothesized that they began being produced with the first 100 generations of life. It's not living, but evolutionary selection and drift are still working.

Saying...

Non-organic compound ------>Abiogensis, then Evolution ------>

Is an arbitrary distinction. It presumes things about evolution that might not necessarily be true.

But of course it is an arbitrary distinction - so what? So is the distinction between day and night.

 

[dust1n]

But of course it is an arbitrary distinction - so what? So is the distinction between day and night.

Well if the question was, what's the difference between day and night:

Night---->Sunrise---->Day

That would be a wholly unsatisfying answer as much as the one in question would be.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well if the question was, what's the difference between day and night:

Night---->Sunrise---->Day

That would be a wholly unsatisfying answer as much as the one in question would be.

And even beyond that the concept of night and day would be "light" and "lack of light" and there is no way for something to be "almost light". So even there this fails to meet the complexity of the distinctions.

 

[dust1n]

And even beyond that the concept of night and day would be "light" and "lack of light" and there is no way for something to be "almost light". So even there this fails to meet the complexity of the distinctions.

Right. While I certainly sympathize with the notion in the OP, and I'm certainly aware of how trivial abiogenesis is treated by a creationist in an argument, and how inconvenient this may all be for the terms of arguing with people, I think it's important to be accurate; as opposed to being concerned with creationists' objections. I'm sure there is a number of worthwhile distinctions to be made. But it doesn't make sense to me separate things solely by defining them in such a way that they are separate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right. While I certainly sympathize with the notion in the OP, and I'm certainly aware of how trivial abiogenesis is treated by a creationist in an argument, and how inconvenient this may all be for the terms of arguing with people, I think it's important to be accurate; as opposed to being concerned with creationists' objections. I'm sure there is a number of worthwhile distinctions to be made. But it doesn't make sense to me separate things solely by defining them in such a way that they are separate.

The issue's surrounding it have been caused by reactionary arguments against creationists claims. The concept of evolution and the fact that biological evolution is correct stands completely aside from the validity of abiogensis. However the argument and misinformation has been spread around that abiogensis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and this is simply false. To what degree it is associated with evolution is debated but it is not inherently or completely separate from evolution itself. I understand that the concept is a moot point when creationists bring it up but now we have come across an issue where individuals who do support evolution have a misguided understanding of the connection between the two. It has gotten better over the last few years but it still, as this thread is evident, is prevalent within those that even have a good grasp of the theory of evolution as laymen. This has been the concerning point and the concern of those that are educators of evolution and evolutionary biology.

 

[Skwim]

Instead of setting up strawmen against evolution to make your case​

for creationism how about making your case on the merits of creationism alone?




​

Can't do it? We understand.

 

[dust1n]

The issue's surrounding it have been caused by reactionary arguments against creationists claims. The concept of evolution and the fact that biological evolution is correct stands completely aside from the validity of abiogensis. However the argument and misinformation has been spread around that abiogensis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and this is simply false. To what degree it is associated with evolution is debated but it is not inherently or completely separate from evolution itself. I understand that the concept is a moot point when creationists bring it up but now we have come across an issue where individuals who do support evolution have a misguided understanding of the connection between the two. It has gotten better over the last few years but it still, as this thread is evident, is prevalent within those that even have a good grasp of the theory of evolution as laymen. This has been the concerning point and the concern of those that are educators of evolution and evolutionary biology.

Excellent summation.

 

[Parsimony]

I think one of the problems here is that there is no universally accepted definition that cleanly separates life from non-life. For example, some people say that viruses are alive and others do not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think one of the problems here is that there is no universally accepted definition that cleanly separates life from non-life. For example, some people say that viruses are alive and others do not.

I don't see how we can separate a virus from life, when talking about abiogenesis. While a virus might not technically be considered alive by all accounts, it certainly can't develop or exist without life, which means they both arose after abiogenesis.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't see how we can separate a virus from life, when talking about abiogenesis. While a virus might not technically be considered alive by all accounts, it certainly can't develop or exist without life, which means they both arose after abiogenesis.

This is true, but my example was meant to illustrate that we don't yet have a concrete definition which can be used to show at what exact point nonliving things became living (in relation to abiogenesis).

 

[jtartar]

To deny abiogenesis when you argue against creationists makes the scientific viewpoint look a lot worse than it really is. Anyone smart who thinks about evolution will come to the question of abiogenesis naturally. Where did we come from? Where did our ancestors come from? Where did their ancestors come from? Oh, it boils down to a single celled organism? Well, I guess that answers all my questions and I'll stop my investigation right there, no need to think about where those things came from, right? Does that make sense to you? **** no!

Biologists study abiogenesis. Some are in the department of biochemistry, but where are most? The evolutionary science department. In what journals do they publish? Evolutionary science journals. Which conferences do they attend? Evolutionary science conferences.

WHY? Because cells are believed to have formed out of spontaneous generation of order that is well known in physics (Micelles, etc.). Hereditary molecules are believed to come from inorganic materials like clay (RNA world hypothesis). The first inorganic molecule to crudely copy itself (we do observe a level of self replication at about the level of crudeness and inefficiency that we would expect in a prebiotic world, today. See prions), did so on accident, and the child molecules that were better at this went faster via natural selection. If you don't think inorganic molecules can replicate or pass on information, look up the propagation reactions of free radicals. Abiogenesis is very chemical in nature, but noble laymen who like to argue for us don't understand that modern evolution is equally chemical.

In the future, please do us a favor by admitting that you don't know enough chemistry or enough about abiogenesis in general to make arguments about this very relevant branch of evolutionary science, but point out to them that it does exist, that there are books on the subject, and maybe you can check one out yourself.

ScottySatan,
All that needs to be said about your post is about the impossibility of life coming from the non living. This is impossible because God, Jehovah, has existed forever and He is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Scientists experimented for many years with Abiogenesis, and realized they were wasting their time, because they know life only comes from life.
For many years scientists tried to make some living thing evolve or just to show some signs of evolution, but they never could make any living thing show any signs of evolving, even with their controlled experiments in a laboratory. They then came to the preposterous conclusion that things must have been different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today.
Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated.
The fossil record actually proves beyond a doubt that evolution has never occurred, even in the distant past.
Think!!! If evolution was occurring, over a period of millions of years as evolutionists say, today there would be no distinct kinds, they would all be a mixture of the lower form of life and the higher, to which they were evolving. Just the opposite is true, whenever a fossil is found there is no doubt as to what it is, every fossil is determined to be of a certain kind, not a mixture.
If you want to realize just how preposterous evolution is, consider the process that would necessarily take place, Homoplasy, and how it could possibly work. Explain how two organisms could evolve, one male and the other female, until they were matured enough to mate. How did they live for the thousands of years of evolution before they could procreate, not even knowing there was another organism evolving to match them???877879888 As simple as it is, the question; which evolved first the chicken or the egg, is an impossibility for evolutionists.
Another term that evolutionists do not want to hear is PRESTABILISM which means that creatures can only reproduce After Their Own Kind. This is stated several times in the Bible book of Genesis, and is a Law for both animal and plant life, Gen 1:11,12, 24,25. This Law of God allows for NO evolution!!!
Another idea is worthy of mention, Successional Speciation. If animals evolved because of the need, as evolutionists claim, why do both the lower and the higher still exist???
Sheep and giraffes are of the same kind, one still exists because it has a long neck, the other was able to keep existing because it had a short neck.
There is only one reason for the silly idea of evolution, evolutionists say the only alternative is creationism, which is unthinkable to them.

 

[jonathan180iq]

ScottySatan,
All that needs to be said about your post is about the impossibility of life coming from the non living. This is impossible because God, Jehovah, has existed forever and He is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Scientists experimented for many years with Abiogenesis, and realized they were wasting their time, because they know life only comes from life.
For many years scientists tried to make some living thing evolve or just to show some signs of evolution, but they never could make any living thing show any signs of evolving, even with their controlled experiments in a laboratory. They then came to the preposterous conclusion that things must have been different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today.
Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated.
The fossil record actually proves beyond a doubt that evolution has never occurred, even in the distant past.
Think!!! If evolution was occurring, over a period of millions of years as evolutionists say, today there would be no distinct kinds, they would all be a mixture of the lower form of life and the higher, to which they were evolving. Just the opposite is true, whenever a fossil is found there is no doubt as to what it is, every fossil is determined to be of a certain kind, not a mixture.
If you want to realize just how preposterous evolution is, consider the process that would necessarily take place, Homoplasy, and how it could possibly work. Explain how two organisms could evolve, one male and the other female, until they were matured enough to mate. How did they live for the thousands of years of evolution before they could procreate, not even knowing there was another organism evolving to match them???877879888 As simple as it is, the question; which evolved first the chicken or the egg, is an impossibility for evolutionists.
Another term that evolutionists do not want to hear is PRESTABILISM which means that creatures can only reproduce After Their Own Kind. This is stated several times in the Bible book of Genesis, and is a Law for both animal and plant life, Gen 1:11,12, 24,25. This Law of God allows for NO evolution!!!
Another idea is worthy of mention, Successional Speciation. If animals evolved because of the need, as evolutionists claim, why do both the lower and the higher still exist???
Sheep and giraffes are of the same kind, one still exists because it has a long neck, the other was able to keep existing because it had a short neck.
There is only one reason for the silly idea of evolution, evolutionists say the only alternative is creationism, which is unthinkable to them.

LOL