Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. Just that the species we observe today evolved from the species that have survived in the past. I can't assert anything about abiogenesis occurring during this time.
Since we still don't fully understand how it occurs, I can't answer that.
I don't have a "personal theory" of evolution. I accept the current model.
Life is ubiquitous today, and has been ubiquitous on this planet for billions of years. The kind of materials and energy that would be required for abiogenesis to occur are already being used by existing life forms. I can't say for certain that abiogeneis does not occur on a planet where life is ubiquitous, it might. But it would be even more rare for it to occur on a living planet then on a lifeless planet, and the new life would probably not survive in completion with pre-existing life that has been evolving for eons of time. It might happen, I don't know. If it did happen we would never notice it.
I don't, and I've never claimed that. But there is no evidence to suggest that any current species living on the planet appeared, or evolved from, an abiogenesis event subsequent to the initial one on earth. Your OP asks how we can accept that species took billions of years to evolve when we factor in mass-extinction events. The answer I gave is that life forms evolved from the survivors of these events.
No, because the resources that sustain life are limited, and being used.
Abiogenesis appears to have been a singular event, unlike evolution which is continuous (thus abiogensis is NOT a subset of evolution). The life forms that resulted quickly spread through the available and rather uniform niche space eliminating the potential for additional abiogenetic events by fully occupying the very simple niche space, "feeding" on the raw materials of what might have been other "starts" and altering the niche space itself (abiogenesis, evidently, occurred when earth had a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere without any free oxygen to speak of) which obviated the possibility of such a singular event (actually series of events) occurring again.
In simple terms, food.
I think just the increase in available niches is sufficient to cause a rapid expansion.
Tis a minor point, but I don't buy this.
No, you just expose your intellectual Achilles's heel. Unlike Darwinian evolution there is no supporting framework for intelligent design, but even a cursory examination of the products clearly demonstrates that intelligence is lacking in the design process. It does not matter if you invoke God (who falls to the knife edge of parsimony, skewered by Occam's razor) or you advance panspermia which just begs the recursive question, you lack support for any such claim. Darwinian evolution, however, suffers from no such problem.
That depends. Like I said, we still don't fully understand the process, so we can't be sure of what we would need to look for. We just can't make assumptions about it.
But you lead into that question by listing extinction events and rates and how they would have negatively impacted biological diversity, essentially asking how we explain biological diversity in light of these extinction events. And you also made statements like "Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years" and "Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago". Are you suggesting that these are examples of evolution from abiogenesis events separate from the one that supposedly took place billions of years ago?