Creationists: Is Evolution about the origin of life?

[gnostic]

To creationists:

Here (and at previous forums that I had joined), it would seem that some creationists have limited understanding of evolutionary biology or they tends to misunderstand the theory.

So the questions for creationists are:

Do you think evolution is about the origin of life?

Do you think evolution is about cosmogony?

Do you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
​

The science dealing with origin of life is called Abiogenesis.

The common misconception from creationists is confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution and its theory only deal with biology, more specifically with changes to anatomy, right up to genetic or cellular level. So evolutionary theory tried to explain why the species differ, and trying to trace it common ancestry, hence the origin of species. The centrepiece of evolution is natural selection.

And this bring up my last question:

So if evolution is not about how life began, then why do creationists object to evolution so much?

I don't understand your vehement objections to evolution.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Some cannot admit that God didn't have a hand in every aspect of their life. Everything has to be divinely driven for them.

 

[Orbital]

Are you trying to say I'm not special?

 

[Man of Faith]

If evolution did happen, there had to be a first life form. So it is prudent to discuss that.

 

[Man of Faith]

Creation covers going from non-existence to existence. So when a comparison is made to evolution, it would help if we could talk apples to apples.

 

[Man of Faith]

If life can't form by itself, then why is evolution a fact? You see how that doesn't make any sense? The basis for evolution is life formed by itself.

 

[lunamoth]

I've got to give this one to Man of Faith.

Making a big deal about the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is like making a big deal about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

The primary reason we want to distinguish the two is that while evolution is extremely well founded abiogenesis is a study still in its infancy. It has been pretty conclusively established that abiogenesis is possible*, but how it actually happened is still fairly unknown. By contrast evolution, in many cases down to specific genealogies, is pretty solidly established.

We also try to distinguish them simply because they are different processes, even if one most likely led to the other.

Even beyond that the fact is that even if they managed to conclusivly disprove abiogenesis, indeed even if they managed to prove that god exists and created the first life, evolution would still be the best theory to explain the diversity in life that we see today.

*The Miller-Urey experiment actually managed to recreate the first stages of abiogenesis, the conversion of inorganic matter to organic matter.

 

[lunamoth]

But evolution by natural selection is also the strongest hypothesis for how life evolved from abiotic materials.

 

[Man of Faith]

The primary reason we want to distinguish the two is that while evolution is extremely well founded abiogenesis is a study still in its infancy. It has been pretty conclusively established that abiogenesis is possible*, but how it actually happened is still fairly unknown. By contrast evolution, in many cases down to specific genealogies, is pretty solidly established.

We also try to distinguish them simply because they are different processes, even if one most likely led to the other.

Even beyond that the fact is that even if they managed to conclusivly disprove abiogenesis, indeed even if they managed to prove that god exists and created the first life, evolution would still be the best theory to explain the diversity in life that we see today.

*The Miller-Urey experiment actually managed to recreate the first stages of abiogenesis, the conversion of inorganic matter to organic matter.

If I read between the lines, I read that evolutionists don't want the problems with abiogenesis tied to it. They want to proudly keep indoctrinating the little ones in school. Throw in a little abiogenesis and suddenly it doesn't look all that promising.

 

[Gunfingers]

No no no no no. Evolution by natural selection assumes life already exists. It did not begin until genetic reproduction began. The process by which prebiotic chemicals became organic life, and then went on to begin genetic reproduction may have been similar to an evolutionary process, but that is not described by evolutionary theory.

 

[lunamoth]

If I read between the lines, I read that evolutionists don't want the problems with abiogenesis tied to it. They want to proudly keep indoctrinating the little ones in school. Throw in a little abiogenesis and suddenly it doesn't look all that promising.

In this, you are wrong. If anything, the explanatory power of evolution by natural selection and the vast amount of evidence for it provides a strong argument for abiogenesis by natural mechanisms that required no Creator to pull the strings or introduce a mysterious life force.

 

[Orbital]

But evolution by natural selection is also the strongest hypothesis for how life evolved from abiotic materials.

I'm afraid you have missed the point of the post.

Evolution by natural selection is the theory of how life evolved, abiogenesis is the hypothesis (or rather hypotheses) that explains how life formed from inorganic material.

There is a distinct difference.

 

[Man of Faith]

In this, you are wrong. If anything, the explanatory power of evolution by natural selection and the vast amount of evidence for it provides a strong argument for abiogenesis by natural mechanisms that required no Creator to pull the strings or introduce a mysterious life force.

Only to a naturalist. To me I see strong evidence of creation.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm afraid you have missed the point of the post.

Evolution by natural selection is the theory of how life evolved, abiogenesis is the hypothesis (or rather hypotheses) that explains how life formed from inorganic material.

There is a distinct difference.

No, I did not miss the point.

The hypotheses about how life formed from inorganic material apply the same natural laws and lack of an intelligent creator as does evolution. Otherwise it would not be science and they would not be hypotheses. Further, each of the various hypotheses for abiogenesis amount to natural selection of the most successful forms of self-replicating systems. The boundary between life and non-life is somewhat fuzzy.

 

[Orbital]

The hypotheses about how life formed from inorganic material apply the same natural laws and lack of an intelligent creator as does evolution.

Yes, but these fields are not about the negation of a creator. The actual content is different.

How organic material and biological life arose from inorganic material does not equal the change in population of organisms.

One relates to the relationship of abiotic material and biological life. The other is a study of the development in biological life.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

If life can't form by itself, then why is evolution a fact? You see how that doesn't make any sense? The basis for evolution is life formed by itself.

How life formed originally has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

How life formed originally has nothing to do with evolution.

To piggyback on this, the basis for evolution is that life evolves. How that life "formed" is immaterial to evolution. Whether the first life developed from abiotic material, crash landed in a meteor, or was magicked into being by your deity of choice, evolution would still describe how it evolved after it developed genetic reproduction.

 

[lunamoth]

No no no no no. Evolution by natural selection assumes life already exists. It did not begin until genetic reproduction began. The process by which prebiotic chemicals became organic life, and then went on to begin genetic reproduction may have been similar to an evolutionary process, but that is not described by evolutionary theory.

I understand your point, but it is disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating to discuss the theory of evolution in a vacuum. Abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, so in a sense evolution does rest on this idea. The natural processes involved in abiotic self-replicating systems to organic self-replicating systems and life are the same.

 

[lunamoth]

Yes, but these fields are not about the negation of a creator. The actual content is different.

How organic material and biological life arose from inorganic material does not equal the change in population of organisms.

But it likely involved populations of molecules and metabolic systems.