Evolution of what?

[Dan From Smithville]

There are many problems with the idea, but the main one is that is unfalsifiable. So many prior conditions would have to be established in order to bring it up to valid consideration.

The main point is that even where life were created at the will of a supernatural being, what we observe since is the action of environment driving change in living things over time or simply the evolution of living things.

That latter and a lot of time.

 

[Stonetree]

There are many problems with the idea, but the main one is that is unfalsifiable. So many prior conditions would have to be established in order to bring it up to valid consideration.

The main point is that even where life were created at the will of a supernatural being, what we observe since is the action of environment driving change in living things over time or simply the evolution of living things

It is a fascinating subject. The dawn of existence....I am just this far from solving that one..

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Abiogenesis isn't the only origin theory. There's also panspermia among others, for example

Not sure what panspermia is, I've seen the word recently, but then again there is the law of biogenesis. Very interesting. So the reality seems to be that no one on earth really knows how it all (life, in particular for this discussion) really started.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Abiogenesis isn't the only origin theory. There's also panspermia among others, for example

OK, let's see -- abiogenesis is the theory that life started from non-life somehow with elements--whatever they were--colliding, crashing, emerging (whatever) maybe more than once, right? And could be the possibility of whatever evolved from that beginning point onward, right?

 

[Soandso]

OK, let's see -- abiogenesis is the theory that life started from non-life somehow with elements--whatever they were--colliding, crashing, emerging (whatever) maybe more than once, right? And could be the possibility of whatever evolved from that beginning point onward, right?

I disagree with your summary of abiogenesis, but abiogenesis is one hypothesis on how life could have started. Nothing to do with evolution

 

[Soandso]

Not sure what panspermia is, I've seen the word recently, but then again there is the law of biogenesis. Very interesting. So the reality seems to be that no one on earth really knows how it all (life, in particular for this discussion) really started.

There are hypotheses, but I'm the wrong person to discuss this stuff with. I'm more interested in life and how it changed over time than it's origins, honestly (at this particular moment in time). I'm pretty ignorant on the subject in more detail

If you're curious about panspermia, here is the wiki on it

Panspermia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree with your summary of abiogenesis, but abiogenesis is one hypothesis on how life could have started. Nothing to do with evolution

All right, I accept that you disagree with my summary of abiogenesis. From what I understand, abiogenesis is the idea (hypothesis) that life started from non-life. Is that correct? If you do not agree, please state your definition of abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is probably what happened you say? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that maybe it didn't happen?

It is supported by evidence. In fact it is the only answer that is supported by scientific evidence. And other ideas have not been refuted. But to be honest saying "God did it" is really no different than saying "Bigfoot did it". Still in the sciences one is supposed to keep an open mind.

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists are greatly affected by the fact that they cannot explain the transition from non-life to life, just as they cannot explain the transition from apes to humans with intellect.

When I talk about evolutionists I mean anyone who defends that doctrine in any of its points and from any of its fronts. In this forum there are many who defend it and cannot explain anything that is asked of them; They say it's not their turn to answer that. So who will it be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All right, I accept that you disagree with my summary of abiogenesis. From what I understand, abiogenesis is the idea (hypothesis) that life started from non-life. Is that correct? If you do not agree, please state your definition of abiogenesis.

If you define abiogenesis that way then even you believe in abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's see -- abiogenesis is the theory that life started from non-life somehow with elements--whatever they were--colliding, crashing, emerging (whatever) maybe more than once, right? And could be the possibility of whatever evolved from that beginning point onward, right?

No. Natural abiogenesis is based upon reactions that occur naturally in nature. Now there is "systems chemistry" added to it where complex reactions tend to naturally generate even more complex reactions. And these reactions can compete with each other. Is that beginning to sound familiar?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you define abiogenesis that way then even you believe in abiogenesis.

? Please explain how you come to that conclusion as to what I believe and how I explained it for you to come to that conclusion. (Thank you.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists are greatly affected by the fact that they cannot explain the transition from non-life to life, just as they cannot explain the transition from apes to humans with intellect.

When I talk about evolutionists I mean anyone who defends that doctrine in any of its points and from any of its fronts. In this forum there are many who defend it and cannot explain anything that is asked of them; They say it's not their turn to answer that. So who will it be?

What do you think needs explaining? And if you are going to use terminology you need to be ready to define it. What do you mean by "intellect"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Please explain how you come to that conclusion as to what I believe and how I explained it for you to come to that conclusion. (Thank you.)

God is not biologically alive. Can he die? Was he born? If no then he is something else beside living. If God started life by your definition that is life from non-life.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Natural abiogenesis is based upon reactions that occur naturally in nature. Now there is "systems chemistry" added to it where complex reactions tend to naturally generate even more complex reactions. And these reactions can compete with each other. Is that beginning to sound familiar?

Abiogenesis, dictionary definition --
"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis, dictionary definition --
"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

But that was not what you said. Oh, and dictionaries are poor sources for scientific discussions. But if you found a a scientific definition it would be more accurate, but it would be roughly the same.

The problem is that you missed what I said. I went by the definition that you gave. I did not go by the dictionary definition, which was not the definition that you gave.

EDIT: My mistake, I thought that you were trying to defend your poor definition of abiogenesis there. You definitely screwed up here by going to a dictionary instead of a scientific source.

 

[YoursTrue]

But that was not what you said. Oh, and dictionaries are poor sources for scientific discussions. But if you found a a scientific definition it would be more accurate, but it would be roughly the same.

The problem is that you missed what I said. I went by the definition that you gave. I did not go by the dictionary definition, which was not the definition that you gave.

I understand. But that is your definition. You summed it up in a way you couldn't possibly know. No matter how you look at it, evolution, according to science, came from life or maybe it did not.

 

[Eli G]

It is funny how the least educated participants in any subject to the point of dedicating themselves only to offending their interlocutors, believe that they are the representatives of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. But that is your definition. You summed it up in a way you couldn't possibly know. No matter how you look at it, evolution, according to science, came from life or maybe it did not.

Please, don't say "I could not know". I have been following abiogenesis a little bit so I do know where the research is going. You need to remember that abiogenesis is the human explanation. It is not necessarily right, but there is one. The dictionaries definition is insufficient. At least for a serious discussion. You made a mistake by using a dictionary where you should have been seeing what scientists say directly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is funny how the least educated participants in any subject to the point of dedicating themselves only to offending their interlocutors, believe that they are the representatives of science.

Are you talking about yourself? I need to remind you that the least educated here are the creationists.