Replies

Thank you for your reply! However, your arguments are completely beside the point.

We all agree that Darwin did not address abiogenesis v biogenesis.

The term omne vivum ex vivo literally means "no life without antecedent life."

It was coined by William Harvey (1578-1657) who believed animals and plants to spring from what he terms a "primordium vegetale," a phrase which may nowadays be rendered "a vegetative germ" "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" (1870) by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) from Nature vol. 2: 400-406

Darwin’s theory takes life as a given and then proceeds to explain speciation in a continuum of life descending from a common ancestor. It is visualized as a tree of life.

Think about it – that literally is “life from antecedent life” - omne vivum ex vivo. He obviously presumed “life from life” from the get-go.

Again, think about it, if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life, explaining speciation from a common ancestor. There would not be common descent and the tree would look like a field of grass.

I am astonished when others do not acknowledge this blatant irony. “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.

You keep citing this "field of grass." This reminds me of the creation "science" baraminology approach, with everything divided into separate "kinds."

But you say, "if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life."

Why not?

In an evolutionary tree of life you have the tree, and below that the roots, then...dirt. It is a continuum from the roots up! It ignores origins. Darwin's analogy holds.

Footnote: Baraminology is based on scripture, not science.

Here is one bit of baraminology lore:

Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) ”every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered. [Source]

Again, think about it, if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life, explaining speciation from a common ancestor.

Books could be written about the logical errors in this statement. First, there is the possible case that first life was zapped into existence by a deity. This is, in fact, the scenario presented in Darwin's Origin. Note that the miraculous nature of the zapping does not change the fact that it is life from non-life.

Second, there is the possible case that a single non-miraculous abiogenic event occurred, in which case all life is descended from it. Notice that this scenario involves life coming from non-life.

Third, there is the possibility that the first reproducing molecules developed as a community, leading eventually to cellular life. Single celled organisms are promiscuous, sharing DNA through infection, conjugation and ingestion. The community of single celled organisms is, in fact, the currently hypothesized common ancestor of all life on earth.

Fourth, any of these scenarios could be complicated by spores or deliberate seeding from space. The origin of these spores would, if taken back in history, be non-living matter for the same reasons cited above.

All of these scenarios require at least one abiogenic event, whether natural or miraculous. None of them are inconsistent with evolution.

All evidence at hand is consistent with the descent of all multicellular organisms from a common population. But evolution would still happen if this were not the case.

Now the nitty-gritty: Darwin anticipated both the miraculous and the non-miraculous possibilities, and wrote about both. He made no judgement as to which was correct. He understood that people with pitchforks waited in the wings for people who questioned the literal reading of Genesis. He didn't speak in public about these things. But his letters are unambiguous on his religious doubts. He even confessed them to his wife before marriage. There is every reason to believe that Darwin thought abiogenesis was the correct view.

But once again, the origin of life matters not to how evolution works.

I am astonished when others do not acknowledge this blatant irony. “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.

Life certainly does beget life. In that limited sense your “Life from life” statement is true. There's not much question that Darwin understood the concept of reproduction.

But -- this is where we differ -- it's not a demonstrated fact, and it's not a pillar of Darwin's theory, that all life (including the first life) must come from pre-existing life.

A more accurate statement would be "evolution from life," which implies two things: (1) Where there is no life, there is no evolution; and (2) Where there is reproducing life, with variation and selection, the inevitable result is evolution.

And -- one more time -- in science (as opposed to creation "science") there is no "law of biogenesis."