Skip to comments.“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” (is it now?)
Posted on 06/06/2013 12:16:27 PM PDT by kimtom
(article photo) The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinkingan effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. The first assumption is ........
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
I know how it started. I watched Prometheis. Great special effects but not really all that good a story. A shame because I normally like Ridley Scott’s stuff.
But at least he explained the origin of life on earth. Well, human life, anyway...
Robert M Hazen, “genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origin”. He also has some interesting lectures on youtube.
BTW, I’m a deep believer in God and The Bible.
Why is it so hard to understand that evolution is a theory on how organisms change and adapt after they already exist. How life came to exist is a separate question entirely. Obviously things like natural selection cannot occur before life begins, just like you cannot tune an engine before an engine exists.
Uhh, actually, this is exactly what Darwin said in Origin of Species.
It is at least a little bit humble, unlike the really stupid guys who claim evolution "disproves" the existence of God.
‘Why is it so hard to understand that evolution is a theory on how organisms change and adapt after they already exist.’
Because, there is a football game being played, and people want to know the name of the kicker who started it. One has a relationship with the other.
Darwin didn't know that either, but neither did Clark.
That 5th dimension probably has a lot to do with genetics.
Darwin said directly that he had no idea how life originated but proposed a theory about how it evolved. If Miller can’t get something so easily verifiable right I’m not inclined to listen to much else he has to say. There are research standards, you know.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Bolding added).
Do you know the actual quote from origin of the species? would love to have it handy.
Yes, look in post #9
If, however, a curious bit of evidence were to surface, and someone were to say "Perhaps we need to broaden our view in order to explain this ..." The strict materialist will shut that conversation down -- no broader view is needed. Get a better microscope. Find new techniques. Empirical evidence is all we will ever need. By definition of what "science" is.
On the other hand, if we look at the origin of life and conclude that something "other" had to play a role, then we open the door to further exploration of other aspects of biology and the possibility that something beyond the empirical world could be considered, and might not be inappropriate.
Science is either 100% materialistic, or it's not. The pure evolutionists are counting on it being 100% materialist. The folks with Faith are willing to accept a material solution for much, but not all, that we see around us.
I'm not narrow-minded: I live in a world of both Faith and Science.
Quote is from Darwin's Ghost (page 170) by Steve Jones, a well-done, full of facts, modern update of each and every chapter in Darwin's "Origin"
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Last paragraph of Origin of Species, at least in some versions.
Makes a considerably stronger case for a Creator being involved that I remembered.
Turns out I exactly agree with Darwin. Quite a shock to me.
Sorry, didn’t mean to step on your post. Didn’t see it.
Life is fascinating , isn’t it???
long-term evolution experiments do not show major evidence for macroevolutionary change (Behe, 2010). Perhaps the more important point has to do with the types of changes that can be expected. As one geneticist argued in a recent book, mutations cause the decay of the message of the genome rather than the formation of new information (Sanford, 2008). A summary of long-term evolution experiments also suggests that even mutations considered beneficial (for the organism) in these studies generally involved the loss of genetic information (Behe, 2010).
2012 Apologetics Press-Joe Deweese, Ph.D.
Behe, M.J. (2010), Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution, The Quarterly Review of Biology,
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications).
How very supercilious of you to assume a lack of understanding on the part of critics.
When the mechanism claimed for natural selection is a function of the extant living system, the nature of that system becomes a seminal question. To ignore it is as facile as "let them eat cake."
“Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence.”
That’s not true, according to the scientific evidence. While the individual asserting this is a mechanical and biomechanical engineer, his expertise is not in genetics or biology.
Let’s start with the famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1952.
It was was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life.
in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.
Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth’s original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment.
There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.
Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced even more diverse molecules. Meteorites have been found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life.
So how do amino acids become life? By joining together.
When a few amino acids join together, which happens spontaneously, they form peptides. And peptides act as the “glue” that hold chains of amino acids together forming proteins, a class of molecules. And primitive proteins can replicate themselves.
An example of this process today are “prions”, like “Mad Cow disease”, in which a corrupted protein can make other, similar, proteins modify themselves to become corrupt as well. This happens at even a smaller scale than the tiniest viruses.
Eventually, proteins become so complex they become RNA, which encapsulates itself to effectively become a virus. Still questionable if it can be called “alive” yet.
However, this is pretty much the start of evolution. As viruses became more complicated, the eventual result was the three “domains” of life. The simplest of these are the Archaea, which look like bacteria but are much simpler, and have a completely different evolutionary path.
They are so simple that these microbes have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells. An organelle is is a specialized subunit within a cell that has a specific function, and it is usually separately enclosed. Thus Archaea are so simple that they consume “raw materials” like hydrogen gas.
Next up, in a huge leap of complexity, are the bacteria, whose RNA has become complex enough to be DNA, which reproduce by dividing themselves, forming near identical nuclei and organelles, over and over again. But they still retain their individuality as single celled organisms.
Finally, when bacteria started to band together, with groups of them performing specialized functions, the final domain of evolution was created, the eukaryotes, which includes all plants and animals other than bacteria and Archaea.
So if you look at a human, their cells could be described as groups of bacteria that specialized into organs, and whose DNA is the same in all their cells, which assures that they reproduce almost identically to their parents.
The split between the animal and plant kingdom was simple enough. The plants adopted a hard shell for their cells, but animals still use soft cells.