Replies

"Oh dear, the common fallacy of mixing evolution and abiogenesis. Sorry, but evolution is a theory dealing with existing life forms, it makes no claims as to where that life originated. The hypothesis of life emerging from a reaction in a pool of biochemicals is not a part of evolution and falsifying it will not falsify evolution. "

Interesting. From the literature I've read, abiogenesis is linked to evolutionary theory...at least one-way...abiogenesis "just happened" and then evolution took over.

Well that's a possibly hypothesis, but it's extending beyond the scope of evolution. Just like you said, the speculation of some is that abiogenesis "just happened" -- and what occured after abiogenesis, not before or during, was evolution. In other words, falsifying abiogenesis will not falsify evolution.

What you are saying, then, is that the study of life's ultimate beginnings (abiogenesis) has nothing to do with evolution? And if it does, it is only from abiogenesis-to-evolution, not evolution-to-abiogenesis?

Yes, the ultimate beginnings of life is irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis as an explanation for all life on earth would require a mechanism like evolution for the life being as diversified as it is now, but evolution does not require that the life have ultimately originated through abiogenesis.

"The first life forms could have formed that way,"

Supposition #1

Do note that I'm just offering possible "example" explanations without endorsing anything. Also note that my list should not be considered exhaustive.

"or they could have been somehow seeded from space"

Supposition #2 - But instead of dealing with the problems facing the evolutionary theories on how life began on earth the problem is shifted "out there".

How life began on earth is not a problem facing evolutionary theories -- how life began on earth is not relevant to evolutionary theories. A hypothesis that life was seeded from space would need to expand on how those life forms in space originated and how they got to earth, but such an explanation would be a matter independant of evolution.

"or they could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity (though the latter case could never be scientifically tested),"

And abiogenesis can? Look at the experiments attempting to "recreate" life-from-nothing. Ultimately they stem from an intelligence.

Er, the problem with testing divine creation is that it involves the "supernatural" (at least until science can come up with a naturalistic explanation for dieties and their abilities) and as such it falls outside the realm of science. Abiogenesis can be scientifically tested, and it has been tested. The results, positive or negative, might reflect on its validity, but not its testability.

"but none of those methods would have any bearing on the validity of evolution -- evolution works on the life forms regardless of how the first life forms got on the planet."

Again, out of curiosity...what is the evidence you refer to that supports the statement of "...evolution works on the life forms regardless..."? What daily kinds of evidences are there?

That would be a seperate matter, though I could point to evolution of a bacteria culture becoming immune to a specific anti-bacterial agent through mutation (that's a pretty small-scale example but it is the only one I can think of off of the top of my head). My point was that evolutionary theory deals with the life forms that are already there, it is not about how those life forms ultimately came into being.

I also notice that the "seeds from outer space" idea is putting faith in an "entity" of some form or fashion that is "out there" somewhere, and typically it is this belief that is turned to upon finding the problems of evolutionary theory to difficult to deal with on earth.

I never claimed to hold to the "seeds from outer space" theory. I was pointing out that it, along with a number of other possible explanations for life origins, can be presented and none of them have any bearing on the validity (ie true or false) of evolution.

Thanks for your response.

Respectfully, I disagree with the bacterial mutations idea. The interpretation of the evidence is what leads one to suppose that this is evolution at work. In reality, what has been shown is that the bacteria already were resistant.

Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population, as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity.