Creationists: Is Evolution about the origin of life?

[Gunfingers]

I understand your point, but it is disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating to discuss the theory of evolution in a vacuum. Abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, so in a sense evolution does rest on this idea. The natural processes involved in abiotic self-replicating systems to organic self-replicating systems and life are the same.

As I mentioned in the post immediately preceding yours, abiogenesis is one possible precursor to evolution. If people want to discuss abiogenesis, great. In fact we've had abiogenesis threads. But the reality is that they are separate and independent concepts. Pretending that one requires the other is disingenuous and self-defeating.

 

[Orbital]

Abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, so in a sense evolution does rest on this idea.

You can throw abiogenesis in a bin, the theory of evolution would still work. Of course abiogenesis came before evolution in a timeline, but that does not make it a necessity to all its successors. Relativity works fine without the big bang, so do newtonian physics.

The natural processes involved in abiotic self-replicating systems to organic self-replicating systems and life are the same.

No, these are two different systems. Evolution deals with the genetics of an organisms' population and how these are passed on. While an abiotic self-replicating system is are processes about chemical reactions.

Algebra and calculus both use dividing and times, but that does not mean they are the same thing.

 

[lunamoth]

As I mentioned in the post immediately preceding yours, abiogenesis is one possible precursor to evolution. If people want to discuss abiogenesis, great. In fact we've had abiogenesis threads. But the reality is that they are separate and independent concepts. Pretending that one requires the other is disingenuous and self-defeating.

But the other possible precursors are either that the first living organisms were introduced from elsewhere (which just pushes the question back) or that they were created by non-natural events.

What I do not understand is why anyone wants to put so much distance between the evolution of life by natural selection and theories of abiogenesis, which must rest on the same natural forces and principles.

 

[sirat]

salaam friends,

The confusion I often see in others is that they confuse the unlocking theory of evolution with the lock itself. There is a confusion with behavior and chemistry too. That a successful male zebra starts towards a lion before running away is seen as the same process as how the zebra got his stripes. They are actually quite different things.

The set of all possible existing organisms and their traits is set by by the combinations of the amio acids into higher level structures. Those combinations are facts and have been facts from when physics got the rules it has today. Evolution is a theory that attempts to describe how those combinations get expressed. It notably fails. It fails to describe how the soybean came to be roundup ready. It also fails to describe how life became silicon-based in 2025<kidding>. But, most people do not often recognize these failures.

I see people confuse the key for the lock. The keys are temporal. The lock is very very long lived, which leads me to a story:

There once was a man who was held in a jail. The jail cell was locked. One day, as the man prayed his obligatory prayer, he noticed the pattern on his prayer rug was a diagram. It was a diagram of the lock. With this information the man made a key with some tools he begged off the jailer. He got the tools through making some trinkets the jailer thought were useful to have. On the fateful day, he used the key to unlock his cell and escape jail.

This is the story of the Naqshbandi.

wa salaam
sirat

 

[Gunfingers]

What I do not understand is why anyone wants to put so much distance between the evolution of life by natural selection and theories of abiogenesis, which must rest on the same natural forces and principles.

Every scientific hypothesis uses the same natural forces and principles, but it's silly to say that if we discuss one we must discuss them all.

 

[lunamoth]

You can throw abiogenesis in a bin, the theory of evolution would still work. Of course abiogenesis came before evolution in a timeline, but that does not make it a necessity to all its successors. Relativity works fine without the big bang, so do newtonian physics.

Of course the Theory of Evolution still 'works' without understanding the specifics of abiogenesis. But, abiogenesis theories are a natural extension, or precursor, to evolution.

No, these are two different systems. Evolution deals with the genetics of an organisms' population and how these are passed on. While an abiotic self-replicating system is are processes about chemical reactions.

It is ALL chemical reactions. OK, if you want to make the distinction about evolution requiring genes, then fine. It is not clear whether replicating nucleic acids came before or after protocells. But recall that Darwin had no idea about genes and only a foggy idea about inheritance when he proposed the ToE.

 

[lunamoth]

Every scientific hypothesis uses the same natural forces and principles, but it's silly to say that if we discuss one we must discuss them all.

Of course, but abiogenesis and subsequent evolution are clearly related.

 

[Orbital]

OK, if you want to make the distinction about evolution requiring genes, then fine.

That is the definition used in biology, that is what the OP is trying to get to.

It is not clear whether replicating nucleic acids came before or after protocells. But recall that Darwin had no idea about genes and only a foggy idea about inheritance when he proposed the ToE.

K. Good that we don't mindlessly follow the writings of Darwin.

 

[Orbital]

Of course, but abiogenesis and subsequent evolution are clearly related.

The are clearly related because the both talk about life, that does not mean they explain the same concepts about life.

 

[lunamoth]

The are clearly related because the both talk about life, that does not mean they explain the same concepts about life.

Look at the process in reverse. We go backwards in evolution as you define it, based upon the inheritance of genetic material, to the point of the simplest cells we can imagine (whatever that may be, whatever model you might favor).

The events just prior to the formation of these most primitive cells would not be distinct from the events that would take place after - you have the same elements involved, even if there is nothing we can identify as a gene:

1. self-replicating system that
2. is more stable (successful) than other systems like it,
3. but not perfectly stable because it can introduce improvements to function that give it a selective advantage
4. and natural selective pressures that weed out self-replicating systems that are not as successful

 

[Orbital]

I think this dilemma is caused by purely semantic problems. Biological evolution specifically relates to life (change of alleles in a gene pool), which is what I have been talking about, while the term evolution and natural selection may be applied in other areas.

Again I bring up my previous example, algebra and calculus both use multiplication and division, but they do not explain the same things.

 

[lunamoth]

I think this dilemma is caused by purely semantic problems.

I agree with you on this. The definition of life is somewhat fuzzy. Viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection, and provide evidence for this process because they evolve fast enough that we can actually measure it. However, most biologists would not say that viruses are alive. Some biologists might make the case that they are.

I think a similar fuzziness applies to the issue of abiogenesis vs. evolution of the first living cells.

 

[gnostic]

If life can't form by itself, then why is evolution a fact? You see how that doesn't make any sense? The basis for evolution is life formed by itself.

You are confusing or misunderstanding the theory as I expected a creationist would.

There are many fields in biology, and evolution is quite specific area in biology.

Creation covers going from non-existence to existence. So when a comparison is made to evolution, it would help if we could talk apples to apples.

If I read between the lines, I read that evolutionists don't want the problems with abiogenesis tied to it. They want to proudly keep indoctrinating the little ones in school. Throw in a little abiogenesis and suddenly it doesn't look all that promising.

Again, you have fallen into the same mindset and misconception on evolution. I don't know if you have any of Darwin's treatises, but know where did he speculate on how life began.

Can you quote from Darwin that he sought the beginning of life or the meaning of life?

In his theory and his notes, including the one about his voyage on the Beagle, the burning questions that Darwin pursued were:

1. Why were different species of animals?
2. Did the different species have common ancestry?
3. What triggers those changes?

These are all valid biological questions, and I can't why creationists object to evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology?

 

[gnostic]

Every scientific hypothesis uses the same natural forces and principles, but it's silly to say that if we discuss one we must discuss them all.

Of course, but abiogenesis and subsequent evolution are clearly related.

Perhaps, the evolution and abiogenesis are related, because they both relate to life.

However, the fundamental on the theory of evolution is quite specific on its scopes (to understand the mechanism in which species "evolve"). The origin of life is actually outside of that scope.

 

[Yerda]

I agree with Lunamoth.

The natural selection and modification of lineages does suggest that the overlap from nonliving to living systems is significant. That living things evolve no matter how and where they start is indisputable, but if we are to build a truly comprehensive story of the history of life we will have to encompass much of what went on before anything that could be unarguably called alive arose.

In saying that, we should never miss the opportunity to hammer home to creationists the evidence that all life is related and that all life evolved from earlier life. Even if one of God's miraculous interventions created the first replicators humans evolved from ape ancestors of the chimp, and cellular ancestors of the bacteria.

 

[Yerda]

If life can't form by itself, then why is evolution a fact? You see how that doesn't make any sense? The basis for evolution is life formed by itself.

Course not. If our last universal common ancestor (LUCA) was something like a bacterium (although it almost certainly wasn't) and LUCA was made by God one day several billion years ago the subsequent descent with modification that led from LUCA to us and our contemporaries is still visible. The basis isn't clear, but the evidence is.

 

[Android]

I understand your point, but it is disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating to discuss the theory of evolution in a vacuum. Abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, so in a sense evolution does rest on this idea.

I understand your point also but, a scientific theory only needs to explain one thing. That's why we have both.
Evolution = the diversity of life
Abiogenesis = the origin of life
The theory of gravity doesnt need to explain the big bang even though its clearly related.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If evolution did happen, there had to be a first life form. So it is prudent to discuss that.

Sure. But that is irrelevant to the question asked in the OP.

If life can't form by itself, then why is evolution a fact?

Because it's evidential and observable.
Life forming by itself does not enter into it.

You see how that doesn't make any sense? The basis for evolution is life formed by itself.

No, it is not.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If I read between the lines, I read that evolutionists don't want the problems with abiogenesis tied to it. They want to proudly keep indoctrinating the little ones in school. Throw in a little abiogenesis and suddenly it doesn't look all that promising.

Actually, we know exactly what kind of event it had to have been, and it has been demonstrated that such a process is indeed possible.
We just don't know exactly which of a number of possibilities it was that actually took place, and for that we need more research.

Scientists doesn't like making claims they cannot substantiate.

 

[outhouse]

Creation covers going from non-existence to existence. So when a comparison is made to evolution, it would help if we could talk apples to apples

creation pulls everything from nothing in a week and puts fully formed homo sapiens on the planet with all animals and plant life. Scientifically we know this did not happen.

when they wrote these creation words they had no idea science could prove them dead wrong in the future or the words may have been different.