Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

reply to post by edmc^2


You said that you reject the idea that a perfect God is incapable of creating a perfect creation, yet that is exactly what the Bible suggests. God fails miserably all throughout the Bible.

No. One does not need abiogenesis to have Evolution. The two or compatible but not dependent on one another. Evolution has mountains of evidence that have no link to abiogenesis. From special Genes amongst the Tibetan peoples that help them survive at high altitudes to transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik there is a great deal of evidence for evolution WITHOUT abiogenesis.

As others in this thread have said even if the first cells on this planet had been created via magic it wouldn't change what we know about Evolution, how it happened and how it works. Disproving abiogenesis would do very little, if anything at all, to damage Evolutionary theory.

reply to post by edmc^2


I watched that video, and I am reminded of one question over and over and over again from that first cell (Abiogenesis) to the (evolution) upright walking human.

HOW ?
It just doesn't ring true or make sense, at the very least it reveals way too many unanswered questions.
Accepting the concept of that video is equal to the concept of intelligent design.
One is faith by what we are told about regarding accuracy of science, the other is faith in another way, the intelligent design way.

Notice the video makes no distinction between the events, in watching that video it is conceptually obvious that they are all one. It is not even an issue, and that is the real point of this thread, even evolutionists that are intellectually honest have tied the events together.

To illustrate, it's like a laptop and it's keyboard and screen. One needs the other to be used effectively.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

To illustrate, it's like a laptop and it's keyboard and screen. One needs the other to be used effectively.

You can't dumb everything down to a metaphor

Especially if it's something as complex as life...

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Evolution and abiogenesis are entirely different theories; while it's true they are correlated, one does not require the other to be true. For example, this is like saying heliocentrism can not be true because we don't know how the sun formed (We do know how the sun formed, but for the purposes of this analogy just assume we don't).

reply to post by edmc^2

Do you agree that the "organic evolution theory" is founded on the "abiogensis theory"? That is - they are link together, one cannot exist without the other?

How often do we have to repeat that how abiogenesis happened is irrelevant to the theory of evolution? It doesn't matter which abiogenesis hypothesis is correct (mud, god, whatever...), the theory of evolution would still be valid

reply to post by edmc^2


What is so hard to comprehend about the fact that the abiogenesis hypothesis is not the "foundation" to Evolutionary theory? ET deals with the mechanism of life and biodiversity. It's not concerned with a foundation, as you call it, of genesis. You keep promoting a fallacy of division, mixed with a little cum hoc, to link two disparate fields of study. One did not begat the other, nor do they need each other to stand on their own merits.

And I don't think you really understand what Sagan was doing with that video . . . or maybe you do and your argument is less than forthright. Sagan is using information and ideas from several fields of study to paint an overall picture of how life came to be, evolved, and advanced on to today. He is doing so in a way to convey, to the layperson, the entire picture in an easy to follow and understand format. In one sense you could say that you are right, if you simply mean that without life . . . evolution wouldn't "exist", although it's a logical fallacy (Division). BTW - your Sagan nonsense is also a logical fallacy . . . appeal to authority and definitely a misrepresentation of what that video was produced to accomplish, as part of the Cosmos series.

You've yet to explain why they have to be tied together. A string of posts containing logical fallacies does not the truth make. So . . . how does evolution fail, in all of it's evidence and support, without the tether of abiogenesis, again? Try not to use architecture analogies . . . bad news.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Please read the above about Sagan. I'm not sure how an out of context clip is proof of anything . . . and if this clip is new to you and you are over thirty, I'm not sure you were exposed to a very well rounded education growing up. It's from the PBS series Cosmos . . . He talks a little about every field, theory, and law of science during this series and always ties it all together for the layperson, in coversation speak. It was meant to give a broad overview of the cosmos, easily understood by all, regardless of social or educational backround. . . .

How that gets twisted into the logical fallacies the you and edmc are spinning, I'll never comprehend. That is of course unless you are both twisting with an agenda?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Ah, finally an answer (I think) or maybe not.

Anyway, thanks for trying Titen –also Solomon/MrXYZ.

So if Organic Evolution does NOT need Abiogenesis – then what was there before Organic Evolution? Surely, there must be something there before organic evolution took over – don’t you agree? It must have come from somewhere – just like in the video by Dr. Sagan. Yes?

Cuz if what you’re actually saying is that: Organic Evolution has no foundation then how is that possible scientifically and biologically speaking?

See the conundrum?

Saying “it just happened” – we have mountains of evidence, no need to question it, is like listening to a priest telling you “your forgiven without accepting Christ”. It’s a BLIND FAITH, don’t you agree (oops)?

Can believing on a theory without a foundation be considered a BLIND FAITH? – In my book without a doubt.

SO is your belief founded on a theory without ANY foundation?

It appears to be so, unless I'm mistaken.

BTW Solomon - I just included the video to prove my point, not to as you say "appeal to authority". Just merely stating the fact that EVEN Dr. Sagan - believed that life came that way - abiogenesis, spontaneous generation or organic evolution. Like what Blue_Jay said - they are one and the same. It's the evolutionists that's making the division in disagreement with other evolution EXPERTS (might I add).

SO is your belief founded on a theory without ANY foundation?


ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

So if Organic Evolution does NOT need Abiogenesis – then what was there before Organic Evolution? Surely, there must be something there before organic evolution took over – don’t you agree? It must have come from somewhere – just like in the video by Dr. Sagan. Yes?

edit on 27-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: NOT

Obviously physics and chemistry played the roles in grouping molecules, creating amino and nucleic acids, proteins, etc... etc...

It's like if 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom have an orgy, then you get a molecule of water.

Heck, if you are looking for the most basic form of inorganic evolution, look no further then the natural act of hydrogen fusion within stars to create helium.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Do you agree that the "organic evolution theory" is founded on the "abiogensis theory"? That is - they are link together, one cannot exist without the other?

How often do we have to repeat that how abiogenesis happened is irrelevant to the theory of evolution? It doesn't matter which abiogenesis hypothesis is correct (mud, god, whatever...), the theory of evolution would still be valid

Just reposting this because it still hasn't sunk in

We DON'T KNOW what started it, but it's completely irrelevant for the validity of the theory of evolution. You can keep on asking us "but what started it all?" but you look silly has no matter what the answer is, it has ZERO impact on the theory of evolution

Now before you answer edmc2, PLEASE reread this post...and then read it again. The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

BTW Solomon - I just included the video to prove my point, not to as you say "appeal to authority". Just merely stating the fact that EVEN Dr. Sagan - believed that life came that way - abiogenesis, spontaneous generation or organic evolution. Like what Blue_Jay said - they are one and the same. It's the evolutionists that's making the division in disagreement with other evolution EXPERTS (might I add).

SO is your belief founded on a theory without ANY foundation?

edit on 27-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: NOT

Okay . . . I see what your point is now, and as suspected, you haven't been forthright. If your assertion is "evolutiion is falisified, or deemed less credible, because abiogenesis is just a hypothesis" . . . you are arguing from ignorance. It's the ol' "if you can't disprove god, god exists" argument. By that logic you can throw all science out the window because we don't know what started the universe . . . no foundation and all. Let me guess what your belief's foundation is . . . god, maybe. Therefore, your beliefs are right? Unfortunately, you're using logical fallacies, in the form of psuedo-philosophy, to try to rearrange and rewrite scientific theory and hypothesis. Theory and hypothesis, which have evidence and facts to back their conclussions. You can plead, out of misunderstanding, for disparate fields to be dependent on each other . . . but it doesn't make it so and it doesn't make you or your beliefs anymore right.

If a supernatural creator started the universe, in one fell swoop, evolution still works. The evidence to support it is not falsified, in any way.

If we are but an illusion, a child's dream, evolution still works and the evidence is still validated.

If the universe started with a bang, cooling to billions of points of light and life, evolution still works.

Evolution doesn't require any special begining or "foundation" to remain a fact . . . no matter how much you try to wriggle around it. Consequently, abiogenesis didn't not have to lead to evolution.

Evolution is about the strongest assertion of fact in science today, arguably even more so than gravity or helio-centricity. The great thing about scientific theories is the process taken to establish a sound, verifiable concept. We gather evidence, and assess probability. For delusional followers of (Un)intelligent design (magic), no amount of evidence is gathered, and no amount of probability is assessed, and neither will ever be integrated into the forming of an ID theory based on science.

And "well I have faith" or "but everything is so pretty" are not even lucid arguments, that do nothing but show a want to engage in analytical thought. Read a book.

reply to post by solomons path

Consequently, abiogenesis didn't not have to lead to evolution.

Proponents of evolutionary theory making these types of statements is why this thread exists.
However the totality of the entire concept of life developing on this earth without any intervention, really can't avoid it.
Some posts in this thread indicate that some people are in a type of intellectual denial over this issue.

I also want to mention I received an applause for this thread, whereas I have received them before, I have never received one in this sub-forum, even though I have made many threads.
It is obviously is an issue of validity to be discussed.

The idea that life evolved from simpler forms into more complex forms rests entirely on the idea that "life" came from non-life. So they are both views of the same camp.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Do you agree that the "organic evolution theory" is founded on the "abiogensis theory"? That is - they are link together, one cannot exist without the other?

How often do we have to repeat that how abiogenesis happened is irrelevant to the theory of evolution? It doesn't matter which abiogenesis hypothesis is correct (mud, god, whatever...), the theory of evolution would still be valid

Ok let me repeat this again so that it will sink:

According to MrXYZ’s expert opinion:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

Ok let me repeat this again so that it will sink:

According to MrXYZ’s expert opinion:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

Ok let me repeat this again so that it will sink:

According to MrXYZ’s expert opinion:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

One more time:

According to MrXYZ’s expert opinion:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

OK I think I got it.

So you’re saying:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid

So any theory - however unscientific, however absurd, however illogical, however improbable, however cookoo, the theory will work because:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid…it has ZERO impact on the theory of evolution

go it - very scientific approach(?!.??).

Repeating one more time:

So any theory - however unscientific, however absurd, however illogical, however improbable, however cookoo, the theory will work because:

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid…it has ZERO impact on the theory of evolution

go it - very scientific approach(?!.??).

Did I get it right and can I quote you on this? Cuz I need to ask an evolution expert if he agrees with you.

And one more thing - do ALL organic evolution “experts” here agree with the statements above?

OK?

Thanks.
edmc2

later..

Ummm... Yes. Lol obviously. Which proves OP wrong on so many levels

reply to post by edmc^2


I already explained the foundation of Evolution is genetics. In order for Evolution to work there needs to be reproduction because it is during such reproduction that mutations occur and new information is thus added. The question facing abiogenesis is how did DNA originate from organic non-living matter on early Earth. What processes led to the first proto-cells and eventually to something we'd recognize as life.

Can believing on a theory without a foundation be considered a BLIND FAITH?

Evolution as a theory has a foundation of evidence that is not dependent upon abiogenesis. This is what others have been trying to tell you, the origin of life is irrelevant to Evolution. Evolution is interested in population mechanics, genetic variation and bio-diversity. That doesn't mean abiogenesis isn't important to science in general or that people aren't looking for the answer but it means that one doesn't need to know how life ORIGINATED to study how life CHANGED OVER TIME.

As for the foundation of abiogenesis I don't know. There is no current prevailing theory about abiogenesis although there are several strong hypotheses last I checked. The strength or weakness of the varying hypotheses does nothing against Evolution. I personally don't accept any one hypothesis about abiogenesis, I prefer to wait for the evidence to point toward one that the scientific community can agree on. In the meantime however that doesn't mean that people get to wedge their God into the gap in our knowledge.

reply to post by edmc^2


The theory of evolution will work because it is a description of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO LIFE.

It has nothing to do with what HAPPENED BEFORE life. Before life was not life, so evolution has no meaning in that domain.

Same thing with the Big Bang theory. It describes what HAPPENS TO A (this) UNIVERSE. It has nothing to do with what happens before a universe.

Originally posted by edmc^2
All I want to know is: what was there before organic evolution took over?

I already answered this with the Brock quote. It's a plausible scenario. Of course we will never know for certain since it happened like 4 billion years ago or so. Don't just skip over subsurface origin hypothesis by saying that there are also other hypotheses. If you don't think it's plausible explain what part of the chemistry you've got a problem with.

Originally posted by uva3021
Ummm... Yes. Lol obviously. Which proves OP wrong on so many levels

edit on 27-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

opps almost forgot - so if somebody from let's say psychiatric ward (no joke) came up with a theory and call's it abiogen- it will work also with organic evolution theory correct?

ciao,
edmc2

just making sure...cuz it's hard to reason with someone in the psychiatric ward (again please - this is not meant as an insult - just making sure)

later...