» Home » Science
Abiogenesis (The Origin Of Life On Earth) Is Completely Irrelevant When Concerning Evolution.
Why is it that some people feel it intelligent to assert that evolution is associated with the origins of life on the planet Earth, or more popularly, that evolution is meaningless without a sufficient theory of abiogenesis?
 Hizashi  20 Apr 2008 00:30
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
It all became clear when that metallic Obelisque appeared in the famous sequence of the film 2001 a space Odyssey.
 
 keepmindok  29 Aug 2008 04:11
 Add a Comment
 
 
We know we did not come from the ape or monkey-family.
We know we did not evolve from a lower spectrum-life-form.

We were "fearfully and wonderfully made, and that my soul knoweth right well", as the Psalmist so eloquently put it so many years ago.
God loves us. He is there for us in times of need or sorrow: It is all that matters.
 
 Scorpion  29 Aug 2008 03:48
 5 Comments
 
 "We know we did not come from the ape or monkey-family.”

Yes, we did come from a family related to that of apes (Chimpanzees to be more precise).

“We know we did not evolve from a lower spectrum-life-form.”

Yes, we can say, to a certain degree, that we did evolve from a "lower spectrum-life-form".

You're not too familiar with science (specifically biology) are you?
by  Hizashi
 29 Aug 2008 03:53
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
Big words, sounds irrelevant enough. You got my vote.
 
 Calvin  18 Aug 2008 02:23
 Add a Comment
 
 
It's about change, not beginnings.
 
 OzzieMan  08 Jun 2008 00:58
 Add a Comment
 
 
Evolution is the change in life over time. It does not address how life originated at all. This is yet another place where creationists (and especially Ben Stein) are completely ignorant.
 
 Cephus  29 Apr 2008 00:49
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both natural sciences, and that's it. As far as the process of both they are completely irrelevant to each other. People who don't understand the process of either often times try to piece them together as one process.
 
 Andromeda  20 Apr 2008 00:53
 Add a Comment
 
The reasons why the hypothesis of evolutionism must posit a mechanism for abiogenesis are these:

1. Historically, Darwin's general theory of evolution (molecules to man) claimed to describe and explain the origins and subsequent complexities of life. It has always been a fundamental pillar to Darwin's thinking. It has been only recently that adherents to Darwin's general theory have tried to avoid this issue of abiogenesis and have dropped it from the debate. This is simply because they have no clue that it happened let alone how it happened. In other words, there is no evidence for abiogenesis or what use to be known as spontaneous generation.

2. Darwin's general theory describes the development of all stages of life to be caused by random, natural events, over eons of time by ever so gradual change. There is no reason to ignore the subsequent implication that life must have arisen by natural causes, as well. If a Darwinist denies that life had a beginning, then he must say life has been eternal. We know this position cannot be scientifically supported.

3. The avoidance of this issue gives further evidence that Darwin's theory and mechanisms to explain life and its complexities really doesn't have the goods.

4. So a person who believes in evolutionism must admit that an adequate description/explanation of abiogenesis must not only be based on sufficient evidence but it is actually necessary for the theory to have merit.
 
 charlee  20 Apr 2008 01:23
 4 Comments
 
 spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are about as different as any two things can be. Clearly you have no understanding of abiogenesis otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. To say that we have no clue about how it happened is a lie - i suggest you actually look at the theory in detail before discarding it.

Evolution is not concerned with how non living matter became living matter. Evolution says nothing on 'molecules to man' it describes how the first simple organisms gradually become more varied and complex over time due to natural selection (or by other processes). Abiogenisis is separate from evolution.

Nobody is avoiding the issue of how life began, it's just that it isn't important when arguing for the existence of evolution, evolution doesn't care how life started - it cares only that life exists. Evolution is a fact - it has been proven to exist without even a shadow of a doubt (the mechanism by which it operates i.e. natural selection is questioned - not evolution as a process)
by  sensai80
 20 Apr 2008 02:23
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Is Still Relative Today
Facts And Theories Are Different Things
Nuclear Energy Is No Longer Harmful
"Laminin", Science And Christianity Come Together.
We ALL Should Do Something About Global Warming. Because It's Creating An Ice-Age As Well.
Intelligent Design And Creationism Are Nonsense.
The Universe Is Infinite
Theistic Evolutionism Give Up Too Much Turf To Secular Evolutionism.
Genetic Research Is A Technological Advance That Can Benefit The Human Race.
No, There Aren't Better Ways.
New Debates
Hockey Is Better Than Ice Hockey.
Is Michael Savage's Opinions Agreeable Or Not
Republicans Are As Responsible For Big Government As Anyone Else.
Why Should Cigerettes Be Illegal
Tobacco Companies Should Be Required To List ALL The Ingredients In Their Products.
Do Ads On T.V. Really Say The Truth?
The Policy For The 'minimum Age To Leave School Being 18' Should Be Bought Forward Earlier.
Zoos Are Not Bad For Animals. Only The Ones That Don't Treat Them With Dignity And Respect Are The Wrong...
Folks Joke About Republicans Being Mean Spirited But It's Basically True.
American Apparel Is Inane, For Only Using So Called Skinny People For There Clothing Line... That's Not...