Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.

en.wikipedia.org...
In natural science, abiogenesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach. In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure)

The basic challenges to what is quoted above are so numerous that you could write full books on every one of them and you would have an encyclopedia of them. However I will not bore you with all that.
Here is the point, even if you do get past all that which is said to be a different issue of discussion and topic it's like you have moved only a millimeter forward in the advancement of the entire discussion because you are only at a single cell prokaryote.

en.wikipedia.org...
The prokaryotes are a group of organisms that lack a cell nucleus, or any other membrane-bound organelles. They differ from the eukaryotes, which have a cell nucleus. Most are unicellular, but a few prokaryotes such as myxobacteria have multicellular stages in their life cycles.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5413f9dd6e4.png[/atsimg]

Now it needs to evolve into eukaryotes

en.wikipedia.org...
A eukaryote is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear envelope, within which the genetic material is carried. Most eukaryotic cells also contain other membrane-bound organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and the Golgi apparatus.

en.wikipedia.org...
A distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes do have "true" nuclei containing their DNA, whereas the genetic material in prokaryotes is not membrane-bound. Eukaryotic organisms may be unicellular, as in amoebae, or multicellular, as in plants and animals. The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is sometimes considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms.

This Thread has explained in great detail that even if you do pass the enormous gap of unknown abiogenesis you are still only at prokaryotes, as we still have today, and the gigantic challenges that presents. Again to the uneducated the discussion has moved forward significantly, to those of us that have studied this we know it's moved only a tiny
fraction. That is why it is a false Dichotomy.

So even those that will dispute and argue that Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, are still by their own definition of evolution, left with the nearly infinite gap between prokaryotes and humans.

Although I am not up to speed at the detail you offer in your OP, it seems to me that Abiogenesis is seperated from evolution because it doesn't carry the weight of scientific consensus that evolution does. Is this not correct?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The prevailing theory on the origin of eukaryotes is the endosymbiotic theory, which says that eukaryotes developed when one prokaryote engulfed another.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Abiogenesis: Origin of life through natural causes from molecular structures.

Evolution: The diversification of life through natural causes

Abiogenesis and evolution are compatible yet separate ideas. Until you can show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey you cannot claim that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution.

Evolution is simply valid no matter what the origin of life is.

Also, you misused the term 'false dichotomy'. A false dichotomy is when you set up a false opposition. It would be like saying there's only black or white when there is clearly grey in between.

reply to post by Maslo


Just how many scientific "theories" are we going to stack together and use them for a basis of reality?

If the totality of the concept of evolution requires so many different biological theories, how is that superior to the theory of intelligent design?

Questions that need answering.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well, we use the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, the big bang theory, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, circuit theory, etc...and that's without getting into specific fields. Those are just the commonly known theories. Here are some more: plate tectonic theory, kinetic molecular theory, quantum theory. I can actually provide a whole host of them.

The sheer number of theories really only speaks to the sheer number of questions we need to answer. No one scientific theory is going to necessarily answer all the questions or even all that many of them. Science is about being precise. Specialization leads to precision.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Also, you misused the term 'false dichotomy'. A false dichotomy is when you set up a false opposition.

Not from my perspective, Abiogenesis is a "false opposition" set up by the evolutionist mindset against intelligent design based on semantics of the English language, we have had this discussion many times, and we simply disagree.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Just how many scientific "theories" are we going to stack together and use them for a basis of reality?

As many as are needed to explain what we observe along with supporting evidence.

If the totality of the concept of evolution requires so many different biological theories, how is that superior to the theory of intelligent design?

Those different biological theories are actually supported by evidence, intelligent design is not.

All life is is Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. A cell isn't an element in and of itself, which is what OP is implying. Notwithstanding this absurdity, to liken evolution with abiogenesis doesn't reconcile with evolutionary theory. In fact its the very opposite. Natural Selection can only act on what's there, which is an obvious consideration, but people time and time again feel inclined to make up there own theory of evolution in order to refute it.

Provide a CHON concentration with an energy source, and voila, amino acids. Amino acids bind together by folding up thus making proteins, aka the building blocks of life.

Now the origin of Carbon, Hydrogen, et al, is a debate for another field of science.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Not from my perspective,

Thankfully your perspective doesn't dictate logic.

Abiogenesis is a "false opposition" set up by the evolutionist mindset against intelligent design based on semantics of the English language,

No, it really isn't. Intelligent design covers many topics. Depending on your view it can cover everything from cosmology down to genetics. Abiogenesis is not set up in opposition to anything, it's set up as a possible natural explanation for the origin of life. It is a very general term that covers a host of hypotheses though there is currently a prevailing hypothesis based upon the evidence.

A false dichotomy is what you are presenting. You are saying that it's either abiogenesis or intelligent design is valid on all points.

And where is the semantics? Semantics arguments are based purely in language, abiogenesis is based in science.

we have had this discussion many times, and we simply disagree.

No, you are simply and demonstrably incorrect.

And once more I ask:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Until you can show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey you cannot claim that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution.

I ask this again because you only addressed how I highlighted your misuse of a logical fallacy label rather than the meat of my post, the main point.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Maslo

 

Just how many scientific "theories" are we going to stack together and use them for a basis of reality?

If the totality of the concept of evolution requires so many different biological theories, how is that superior to the theory of intelligent design?

Questions that need answering.

It's superior because it has backup as evidence...whereas intelligent design has ZERO scientific backup evidence.

Also, they are separate because we don't need to fully understand what started life to confirm evolution. Just like you can explain how a window frame is made when building a house doesn't require you to know about the foundation of the house...

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


To the topic - Imagine for the sake of argument someone would prove abiogenesis wrong - for example by proving that (only) the very first self replicating DNA or life cells were created by an intelligent entity, and after that they were let to evolve on their own. Would it disprove for example evolution of dogs? No. Therefore abiogenesis is separate from evolution - because it can be disproven without affecting the validity of evolution.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


All you've shown here is that you are skeptical of claims to abiogenesis. That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with Evolution. How the first proto-cells emerged from early earth conditions has little to do with how selective breeding altered the genetics of dogs splintering them into the various breeds we see today. How RNA and DNA came into existence has nothing to do with how human beings evolved to suit our environment after we spread out from Africa (some, like the Tibetan people, gained new genetic information to help them survive). I fail to see what abiogenesis has to do with the dinosaur into bird transition.

Simply because we are not sure how abiogenesis occurred does not mean that all the fossil evidence, genetic evidence, behavioral evidence, and morphological evidence for evolution no longer counts.

On a semi-related side note: The fact that there are still some pieces to the puzzle does not mean creationists get to shoehorn in a supernatural cause either. When something is unknown it is UNKNOWN.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Also, they are separate because we don't need to fully understand what started life to confirm evolution. Just like you can explain how a window frame is made when building a house doesn't require you to know about the foundation of the house...

Thank you for admitting that. Lets carry your illustration forward, can you really say we don't understand anything about the foundation of a house but we do understand about the structure above the cement slab?

The structure of a house is tied to the foundation, so the concept is that they are one and not separate parts but one, a solid foundation must exist for the structure above it to stand. By your own admission evolution conceptually has an unknown foundation.

In essence then a proponent of life evolving but arriving from non living matter has no foundation for the rest of there belief structure.

That is why abiogenesis must be linked to the concept of Evolution. Even though scientifically they are defined differently. They are inescapably linked together in concept.

Complete House= Concept of A-Z of non-living matter progressing to two humans, male and female.
Foundation=Abiogenesis
Structure=Evolution

The logical link is undeniable.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.

And yet here you are conflating two different scientific concepts in order to make your own position easier to defend. Only you’re really not defending a position, are you? You seem to believe that by casting doubt on abiogenesis, which you don't even really do in this post, you’ll somehow disprove evolution, thus proving your fairy tale of intelligent design. That, my friend, is the true definition of a false dichotomy and intellectual dishonesty.

The basic challenges to what is quoted above are so numerous that you could write full books on every one of them and you would have an encyclopedia of them. However I will not bore you with all that.

Really? Please, by all means, let's see this encyclopedic work you claim exists. It wouldn't be a bore at all. I'm betting a majority of it is just a refutation of the original Miller-Urey experiment, which has been refined over time as a better understanding of primordial conditions has been gained.

This brings to light another bit of intellectual dishonesty I regularly see on the part of people who are proponents of creationism/intelligent design: scientists publish a initial paper with findings, other scientists take a look at the experiments described and improve upon them using knowledge gained since the time of publication, scientists publish new papers with new findings, so forth and so on. Yet you never see the supposedly "intellectually honest" creationists stay current on the scientific literature to see how work has progressed through the subsequent papers, they just keep on attacking the same initial paper that was just a starting point. It's a straw man argument and a poor one at that. It's almost like you're trying to run for public office in 2012 against William Taft - he's not even alive any more, much less a candidate.

Just keep repeating this to yourself over and over and it will eventually sink in: yes, you have to have life in order for evolution to exist, but it's irrelevant where that life came from; not knowing in an absolute sense where it came from does nothing to undermine the theory of evolution.

If a Eukaryote developed by engulfing a nucleus from somewhere, how did that seperate organism then get reproduced inside of further reproductions?

That's like saying that if I put a tattoo on myself or put a rock inside of my bone that my children will have a chance of growing that same object inside of themself.

And even if the Eukaryote had developed by engulfing a nucleus, how did the others get those same cells if not by reproduction but by doing the same? We're not talking about intelligent organisms, we're talking cells here.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Please show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey. Or you can just show me how it would be invalid if the first life forms were created or arose in any other supernatural and/or nonsensical way.

If you can do so then you have a point and I will take my hungover magical space donkey and go home.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Horizontal gene transfer. Single celled organisms are far more prone to it than we are. It's how diseases develop antibiotic resistance upon entering bodies. They get it from our natural flora.

Of course they aren't intelligent creatures, but it doesn't matter whether a cell "knew" or didn't "know" what do to, the ones with a tendency to do whatever possible to increase in the population will increase in the population.

You can use that argument for any organism, "how does a wasp know which fig tree to penetrate?"

The answer will always be, "because it descended from wasps that penetrated this particular fig tree"

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

If a Eukaryote developed by engulfing a nucleus from somewhere, how did that seperate organism then get reproduced inside of further reproductions? That's like saying that if I put a tattoo on myself or put a rock inside of my bone that my children will have a chance of growing that same object inside of themself.

Those engulfed prokaryotes continued to reproduce inside of their host cells. When the host cell divided, both daughter cells contained some of these prokaryotes.

Eukaryotic organisms cannot build their own mitochondriae, plastids and other organelles. These organelles live and reproduce inside them, but they have their own genetic material, and divide on their own.