Replies

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.

Your replies fascinate me, js1138. In some other time and place the sidebar would make for a hilarious comedy skit.

Over and over, I keep saying that Darwin’s theory does not address abiogenesis v biogenesis. And yet, over and over, you insist that I do.

The irony is quite simple and should be readily apparent to anyone: “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the Law of Biogenesis.”.

What makes it an irony is the unexpected fact that the issue he chose not to tackle (abiogenesis v biogenesis) - is itself raised by his own presupposition, that life begets life. The irony does not change the fact that Darwin did not posit a theory to address abiogenesis v. biogenesis.

You made an observation which I found particularly telling. You said:

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.

In this, your number one scenario, the non-living matter is not spontaneously self-organizing into life. The causal agency (the zapper) is a Deity who is alive by any definition of life (successfully communicating, aware, willful, acting on decisions, etc.) Thus life begets life.

As a final point, your first scenario removes three of the four Aristotlean causes from the table (one more than methodological naturalism). The four causes are: formal, material, efficient and final. Your first scenario considers only the material cause.

If you would like to delve into abiogenesis v biogenesis, I'm game! But the first step must be a definition of life v. non-life/death in nature.