Why isn't abiogenesis part of MODERN ...

Why isn't abiogenesis part of MODERN evolutionary theory?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1 Apr 21, 2014
Historically abiogenesis was included in text books teaching evolution - so why are evolutionist adamant about no longer including it as part of the evolutionary theory?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#2 Apr 21, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
Historically abiogenesis was included in text books teaching evolution - so why are evolutionist adamant about no longer including it as part of the evolutionary theory?
It may be mentioned in addition to evolution, but it never has been a part of evolution. This is a claim (really a lie) by those that don't understand the history and theory of evolution. Whether life originated by divine creation or by natural forces is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

It is worth mentioning that both Judeo-Christion creationism and abiogenesis hypothesize life originating from non-living matter.

Why do you think the theory evolution includes abiogenesis?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
Historically abiogenesis was included in text books teaching evolution - so why are evolutionist adamant about no longer including it as part of the evolutionary theory?
Evolution shows how ordered complexity can increase through natural processes, but it can only work as a process once a self replicating organism with heredity already exists. Once we have that, evolution has something to work on. But by definition, evolution as a process (mutation + natural selection etc) cannot explain how that replicator first arrived.

We know that HAD to be by some other process (God, natural abiogenesis, take your pick).

When Darwin was asked how life might have begun, he spoke vaguely of lightning hitting a puddle, but he did not pretend to know.

Historically, abiogenesis was probably mentioned in text books merely as a conjecture or idea, because people are bound to ask "if this is how life evolved, then how did it all start?". The truth is, scientists do not know. But they DO know how evolution works, and it would still work no matter how life started.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
Historically abiogenesis was included in text books teaching evolution - so why are evolutionist adamant about no longer including it as part of the evolutionary theory?
Because we don't use creationist textbooks.(shrug)

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#5 Apr 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Whether life originated by divine creation or by natural forces is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
I've said the same thing but every time I say it, religious evolutionists throw a hissy fit.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#6 Apr 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It may be mentioned in addition to evolution, but it never has been a part of evolution. This is a claim (really a lie) by those that don't understand the history and theory of evolution. Whether life originated by divine creation or by natural forces is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
It is worth mentioning that both Judeo-Christion creationism and abiogenesis hypothesize life originating from non-living matter.
Why do you think the theory evolution includes abiogenesis?
I was an evolutionist for 49 years. All throughout my schooling, including university level EVERY biology class started with evolution and opened with theories of the beginning of life usually postulating from the Stanley Miller experiment and how that demonstrated how life began. However I have noticed that lately the definition of evolution has been simplified to mean simply "change over time", if that is truly the official definition then everyone is an evolutionist as I don't know anyone who says that life does not change over time - the question is how much change is possible?

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#7 Apr 22, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution shows how ordered complexity can increase through natural processes, but it can only work as a process once a self replicating organism with heredity already exists. Once we have that, evolution has something to work on. But by definition, evolution as a process (mutation + natural selection etc) cannot explain how that replicator first arrived.
We know that HAD to be by some other process (God, natural abiogenesis, take your pick).
When Darwin was asked how life might have begun, he spoke vaguely of lightning hitting a puddle, but he did not pretend to know.
Historically, abiogenesis was probably mentioned in text books merely as a conjecture or idea, because people are bound to ask "if this is how life evolved, then how did it all start?". The truth is, scientists do not know. But they DO know how evolution works, and it would still work no matter how life started.
Mutation + natural selection also cannot increase the genome of a creature or living thing. Information must be added to change scales into feathers, fins into feet, etc.- where does that information come from?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#8 Apr 22, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I've said the same thing but every time I say it, religious evolutionists throw a hissy fit.
So this is you admitting that you make the same erroneous statement ("abiogenesis is part of evolution") multiple times, then being CORRECTED multiple times by those who know the subject better than yourself.

This tells us you're learning-impaired.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#9 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was an evolutionist for 49 years. All throughout my schooling, including university level EVERY biology class started with evolution and opened with theories of the beginning of life usually postulating from the Stanley Miller experiment and how that demonstrated how life began. However I have noticed that lately the definition of evolution has been simplified to mean simply "change over time", if that is truly the official definition then everyone is an evolutionist as I don't know anyone who says that life does not change over time - the question is how much change is possible?
I sense an untruth here.

Like "Doctor" HTS on another thread.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#10 Apr 22, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I've said the same thing but every time I say it, religious evolutionists throw a hissy fit.
I don't know about other "religions" but from a Christian perspective there is a huge difference. The God of the bible is the ONLY one to claim He created ex nihlo (from nothing) and is important to the entire story of our fall and redemption - if there was death before Adam's sin then the bible would not be accurate when it says that death is the RESULT of sin and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) paid the wages of that sin (death) for us so if we trust in His substitutionary death we can be free of the consequences of our sinful nature and the resulting spiritual death.
All other "gods" create from something that is already in existence whether they be Hindu, Greek, Babylonian...whatever - that is a BIG difference.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#11 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was an evolutionist for 49 years. All throughout my schooling, including university level EVERY biology class started with evolution and opened with theories of the beginning of life usually postulating from the Stanley Miller experiment and how that demonstrated how life began. However I have noticed that lately the definition of evolution has been simplified to mean simply "change over time", if that is truly the official definition then everyone is an evolutionist as I don't know anyone who says that life does not change over time - the question is how much change is possible?
The theory does not nor has it ever included abiogenesis. I don't know how much clearer I can be on that. If you have a science background, I am surprised that you cling to this erroneous notion.

Evolution deals with actual change. Current questions deal with how these changes come about and when. I will leave you to worry about how much change is possible.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#12 Apr 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I sense an untruth here.
Like "Doctor" HTS on another thread.
I am with you. The only mystery is which of our little buddies it is. HTS or a dark blue replay.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#13 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation + natural selection also cannot increase the genome of a creature or living thing. Information must be added to change scales into feathers, fins into feet, etc.- where does that information come from?
You are wrong. This calls into question that education you claim.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#14 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
Historically abiogenesis was included in text books teaching evolution - so why are evolutionist adamant about no longer including it as part of the evolutionary theory?
It is no doubt mentioned in textbooks. Even Darwin alluded to it. But the distinction is not difficult to understand. Abiogenesis is the investigation into the ***chemical*** processes that led to self-reproduction. Evolution is a ***biological*** investigation into how that self-reproduction led to the diversification of life.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#15 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation + natural selection also cannot increase the genome of a creature or living thing. Information must be added to change scales into feathers, fins into feet, etc.- where does that information come from?
Of course it can. Gene duplication is one of the types of mutation. There are also smaller insertions.

Once a gene duplication occurs, one copy can continue the original function while the other can mutate creating new function.

Changing feathers to scales? That is not likely to be the result of "one" mutation of any kind, but the cumulative result of many mutations over possibly millions of years and influencing many different parts of the genome. And there will be many intermediate forms before what we would today call a true feather is developed. You think there is a special "feather" gene? It does not work that way, and no evolutionist has ever claimed it did.

So your incredulity merely stems from a misunderstanding of how evolution works at the genetic level in the first place. Plus I note this "information" argument has become very trendy with creationists lately but its nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#16 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation + natural selection also cannot increase the genome of a creature or living thing. Information must be added to change scales into feathers, fins into feet, etc.- where does that information come from?
I will also add that its not just mutations in the genome that are adding information. What survives and what dies - natural selection - is also adding information continually. As a loose analogy, imagine a Kindy Mom who is not sure what the best recipe for chocolate cookies is, so decides to randomly alter the quantities and wait for the kids' feedback on which cookies tasted best.

She takes the most popular results, averages them, then makes small RANDOM changes around that new recipe, again checking the kids' feedback.

After a few iterations, the kids have added sufficient information to her recipe for her cookies to be the best in the neighbourhood.

Now note these important points:

1. She did not plan the ideal recipe. She just tried random variations in quantities around the average at every iteration.

2. The kids did not try to "design" the cookies either. They just liked what they liked.

Mutations are like (1) and the kids' preferences are like (2). I know that in this example we have a sentient mother baking and sentient kids choosing but a moment's reflection will tell you that these are not the relevant factors in this example. Its random variation and selection, thats all, leading to an optimal result.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#17 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was an evolutionist for 49 years. All throughout my schooling, including university level EVERY biology class started with evolution and opened with theories of the beginning of life usually postulating from the Stanley Miller experiment and how that demonstrated how life began. However I have noticed that lately the definition of evolution has been simplified to mean simply "change over time", if that is truly the official definition then everyone is an evolutionist as I don't know anyone who says that life does not change over time - the question is how much change is possible?
No biology study I have ever done, and no textbook I have ever read, has EVER claimed that the Miller / Urey experiment solved the problem of abiogenesis. All it showed was that some complex organic chemicals can form naturally under certain conditions.

You do not win marks by knocking down claims you yourself have exaggerated for dramatic effect. That is called a strawman argument, and its a fail.

At the same time, I will grant that the success of that experiment may have led some biologists at the time to underestimate the difficulty of going from there to a primitive self-replicating organism, but that is not the same thing.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#18 Apr 22, 2014
You can scientifically study fire in all its aspects without ever knowing haw the first flash of fire on earth came about.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#19 Apr 22, 2014
And the answer to the thread's opening question is:

HOWEVER life first came about (God, abiogenesis, alien seeding), it has SUBSEQUENTLY EVOLVED and continues to do so.

So knowing how life cam about or NOT knowing makes no difference to the study of evolution.

It DOES make a difference to a fundamentalist Christian working an agenda here, because they really cannot dispute that evolution occurs, so they are reduced to trying to "stump the science people" on a subject about which they know science is not yet completely sure.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#20 Apr 22, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I've said the same thing but every time I say it, religious evolutionists throw a hissy fit.
Ah shaddap Shoob.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 17 min dollarsbill 4,952
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr was auch immer 165,430
What's your religion? 3 hr Mystic science 87
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 85,588
Humans evolved from Canadians 3 hr Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species 3 hr Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... 5 hr was auch immer 10
More from around the web