Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[DBSmith]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

DrNoGods wrote: But fast forward 150 years and that situation has changed dramatically. You can't cherry pick a few old examples and discredit the mountains of evidence for evolution. If new fossils are found which fill in a gap, or change a prior interpretation, that is how science works.

And he was concerned about the lack of transitional fossils as were others at the time. But fast forward 150 years and that situation has changed dramatically. You can't cherry pick a few old examples and discredit the mountains of evidence for evolution. If new fossils are found which fill in a gap,….. ….(and more than several other posts as well).

You can't cherry pick a few old examples and discredit the mountains of evidence for evolution.

So, I am cherry picking old examples in the fossil record to disprove the mountains of evidence for evolution. Again, the irrational reasoning to assail the contents of a post: fallacy of composition. Problems in the fossil record are part of the fossil record within the theory of evolution and you should not confuse them as being the whole theory of evolution. Many folks today tend to shy away from the fossil record due to its limitations and inconsistencies.

My comments about fossils pertain to the fossil record, and stands apart from the other theories within the theory of evolution. Please don’t confuse folks. The fossil record comments I’ve made have pertained to the lack of the existence of a common ancestor or a transitional form.

Well…, as we both note, Darwin noted the lack of transitional forms. But, he was not talking just about the human fossils (which were few) as you noted, he was talking about the known fossil records available for study in his day. And “fast forward [over] 150 years� later the situation has not changed as you who have folks believe. You, again, ignore important items in the contents of others’ posts which contradict what you later state about their posts. As previously noted, Ernst Mayr was a well-known and respected & staunch evolutionist (called one of the godfathers of evolution by some) who published over 150 years after Darwin’s remarks on the lack of transitional forms. He clearly stated throughout his career about the lack of transitional forms, intermediates (see previous post, 502). There are other authors for those who are interested to search internet data bases. And I did note how it could be that the evolutionists evolve instead of discovering evidence in the findings for something to evolve. Evolutionists redefine the definition of a term to make findings fit, and call it a new finding or a new theory…again, not according to the previous interpretations nor a new theory, just changing definitions to make things fit. Like the modern day reworking the Miller experiment.

Anyway, it is always important to note what has been stated by honest, well known and respected researchers like Darwin and Mayr. It should not matter whether it is supporting and not supporting to include it. Makes it easier for one to make one’s own determination on the stated ‘facts’ as real proof for any given conclusion. And by the way, the “few old examples� you state, are still very much a part of the current evolution literature. That’s why they were used as examples taken from current review articles. There really aren’t that many. Computers today can data mine and isolate from the millions of articles on the internet quite easily.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 523 by For_The_Kingdom]

FtK, I'd like to ask you something. Several times in our discussions on evolution, you say something like evolution is too complex a process for a mindless blind nature to do it, and you also challenge scientists to show you evolution in the lab.
I want to question this line of thinking. There are many things that occur in nature that are at present beyond our (as in us, manmade) ability to replicate. The fusion that occurs at the heart of a star is something that does not require a mind to accomplish, is incredibly complex and beyond our ability to replicate (at least for now).
Are there ANY processes that occur in nature that are presently beyond our grasp to replicate that you acknowledge are complex and yet do not have a mind behind them?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 523 by For_The_Kingdom]

So why can't you? You can't create consciousness from scratch nor can you make a dead brain conscious again, but Mother Nature did one of the two..which means that a mind/blind process was able to do something that intelligent visual human beings aren't able to do.

I think I'm saying "X" and you are hearing "Y." I agree that humans cannot yet go into a lab and create a living thing from nonliving material, and I also agree that "mother mature" did do it. No argument from me on either of those points. But neither of these relate to the position I am putting forth that consciousness, mind, whatever you want to call it, is a manifestation of brain activity. There are plenty of things mother nature can do that humans can't, and the specifics of how brains developed to the point of being able to experience consciousness also does not matter. I am claiming that consciousness is the result of normal brain activity, completely independent of how that brain came about, and how mother nature did it.

Here is my take. Life first appeared on this planet a very long time ago (best estimates now are in the 4 billion, give or take a couple hundred million, years ago). It was some sort of single-celled bacteria-like or archaea-like living thing that could replicate, take in energy, and carry out a simple form of what we would call "life." But it didn't have a brain, or consciousness. So we had living things but no consciousness. It doesn't matter how this initial life came into existence, or the fact that humans can't go into a lab and create it. That is irrelevant to the argument that brains create consciousness via their operation as a system. We had life, but no consciousness.

Then life diversified and became more complex. Eventually ganglia became more integrated and complicated, nervous control became centralized, and at some point this structure became complex enough, and exercised central control of the organism enough, that we started calling this organ a brain. Maybe this was in a worm or some similar animal, but at some point along the line this organ (brain) allowed the creature to be aware of its environment, and to react according to sensory inputs, possibly remember stuff like where its worm hole is located, etc. Then brain complexity further developed over a long period of time and in many different life forms and today humans have the most complex and most "intelligent" brain.

Where did consciousness "suddenly" come into this picture? My argument is that it arose gradually in synch with brain development, based on what we know about how life did diversity and become more complex over time. And the appearance of consciousness in a living thing happens to parallel brain development, which would be an incredible coincidence if there were no correlation between the two. It doesn't matter whether or not we can go into a lab a create life from nonlife, or how mother nature did it ... consciousness can be solely the result of normal brain activity independent of either of these.

But you seem to be arguing that because we can't go into a lab and create life from nonlife, and that mother nature did accomplish this, that this somehow proves that consciousness doesn't arise from brain activity alone. There is no relation between these things at all ... mother nature could have created complex brains as described above, and even had it guided by the hand of your favorite god, and it doesn't invalidate the premise that consciousness is the result of normal brain activity.

Consciousness isn't something that you can just mix up ingredients in a bowl and get. It requires something much, much more. Something, divine.

I agree that you can't mix up ingredients in a bowl and make a conscious, living being. But if you fertilize an egg in a human female that one cell will divide and grow ... and it will initially be completely unconscious. At some point it will develop a neural tube, then a brain, and when that brain reaches a certain level of development this new human can think and be aware of itself (ie. be conscious). Before the brain has reached this level of development it is not conscious. There is no need for some divine "spark" to make this new human conscious ... it happens when the brain reaches a state of development that memory works, sensory inputs can be processed, thoughts formed, etc.

I don't know. On judgment day, ask God.

OK ... do you have an email address for him/her/it?

Nonsense. First off, there are too many videos and websites debunking the results of the experiment. If it was/is a known fact that the experiment was a failure at producing life, then why are people to the day still going at lengths to debunk the results?

Debunking the results of the experiment? The results of the experiment are that it produced a few animo acids by electrical and thermal action on a mixture of 4 gases. Give me one link to a video or website claiming that no amino acids were produced in the experiment! Again, here is the entire, 11 paragraph paper (I think I said 9 before) that you can read in under 5 minutes:

http://abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf

There is no mention of trying to create life anywhere in it!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 527 by DBSmith]

The materials (gases) Miller used did not exist in large amounts in the earth’s timeline as Miller stated which essentially aborts the application of any ‘facts’ obtained from his experiments….that particular molecules could be formed that are related to life forms today.

It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that it is well know now that the starting gases Miller used do not represent the early Earth's atmosphere as was thought in 1952. But you, like FTK, keep missing the point of this simple paper which I have posted a link to 3 times now. The purpose of the experiment, as stated in the original paper, was to test the hypothesis that complex organic molecules that "serve as the basis of life" could be produced by electrical and thermal action on a mixture of simple gases. Several amino acids were produced. Amino acids are what proteins are made of, so the experiment did, in fact, produce complex organic molecules that serve as the basis of life (ie. amino acids, although of the wrong chirality).

There was no attempt in the experiment to produce a living thing, and the results are not negated because they used the wrong gas mixture. That certainly lends less support to whether an abiogenesis event actually occurred on Earth, or how it may have occurred, but the goal of that experiment, at that time, was not to produce life or confirm any particular abiogenesis event. It was to test a hypothesis that certain molecules might be produced that do serve as the basis for life, and he presented the results. At no point did make any comments or conclusions on whether the results supported (or not) any particular abiogenesis event.

As for the other comments, you still keep saying that evolution is "just a theory" as if that makes it invalid somehow. There is so much experimental and observational data supporting evolution that it is now called a theory which, in the formal scientific method, is as close to fact as it gets. The word theory does not mean hypothesis, which you keep implying.

You have cherry picked some examples, mostly from the biosciences, to support your claim that most of science is unreliable and rigged. That is simply not true. You have to expect that published results will be challenged, and other scientists will attempt to reproduce the results. Publishing papers is the way this information gets out to the scientific community. Cancer research, and other areas where we are nowhere close to fully understanding mechanisms, the effects of treatments, etc. are guaranteed to be the ones with the most refuted results because there is still so little known and there will be many false starts. But the goal of science is to do research, publish the results, have them challenged, refine as needed, and repeat until you get at the answer. Some fields are much more rigid with absolute results (eg. mathematics) than others (eg. cancer research). But to denigrate the entire enterprise of science by cherry picking a few bad apples is not legitimate, and fortunately is never going to shut it down.

[Clownboat]

Notice readers that For the Kingdom cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for small changes to not lead up to large changes.

Notice readers that Clownboat cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for the dogs of today to become nondogs a hundred-million years from now.

Hold on a minute! Who here claimed that dogs would become non-dogs a hundred-million years from now?

I acknowledge that continual small changes will add up to larger changes, much like how seconds add up to be minutes. So if a population of dogs were to continually have small changes, given enough time these dogs will likely not resemble the dogs that they once were, but they will still be dogs. Your question is nonsensical.

Nice attempt at a dodge though. All because you admit small changes happen but cannot point to a mechanism that would stop small changes from adding up to larger changes.

Actually, my contention is even bolder than that, because I am saying it didn't happen at ALL. So the distinction between suddenly and gradually is irrelevant.

This explanation is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be to point to the mechanism that stops animals from having small changes that add up to larger changes.

Funny, because I thought the end goal was "survival". Remember, whatever it takes to survive, right? Isn't that the goal? SMH.

Evolution is not driven by some goal. There is no end game. A species survival, which is not a guarantee is often a result of evolution. Perhaps you should stop shaking your head so much.

- For the Kingdom said: "So what drove reptiles to evolve into birds? The need to fly? The need to peck? What?"
And: "I asked will a human evolve wings"
And: "what is the mechanism that stops a human from evolving wings?"

This is coming from the same person who had previously challenged me to give the mechanism that will STOP these kind of changes to occur. If reptiles can evolve wings and beaks, then what in the hell will stop a human from evolving wings? I am simply asking what is the mechanism in place that will prevent this sort of thing. You were the one claiming that there IS no mechanism in place.

Listen closely please. I am not aware of, nor do I claim that there is a mechanism in place that would stop a human from evolving wings. I don't claim that humans will evolve wings and I do not claim that a human cannot evolve wings. Why you keep asking about humans and wings is lost on me.

So you are being disingenuous by mocking my questions as if they are absurd, when you are the one who implied that nothing can stop such changes, because after all, "there are no mechanisms in place that would stop these changes from occurring".

There is no mechanism in place that I am aware of that would stop these changes from occurring. Your questions however deserve to be mocked.

You however, and for some reason think that small changes in a species will stop happening at some point and for some as of yet unknown reason. Thus, I keep asking and you keep failing to point to this mechanism. Instead, you ask me about humans evolving to have wings as if that has anything to do with you answering the question posed to you.

For this reason, I have been forced to start addressing the readers on behalf of your non debate.

That was YOUR contention, not mines. And if you think my questions are so absurd involving the flight of human beings with the evolution of wings, then you agree with me that there are limits to these changes.

What is absurd about humans evolving wings? Do you think there is some mechanism in place that would stop humans from evolving wings? If so, please describe this mechanism.

Never fails. Whenever someone states that they are not on the evolution bandwagon and begin to explain why, they always get accused of misunderstanding the theory..

Stop whining and describe the mechanism that stops small changes in a population from adding up to larger changes.

As if they are so smart, and we are so stupid.

We don't believe in evolution, not based upon what we don't know about the theory, but based on what we DO know about the theory.

Great! What do you know about the mechanism that would stop small changes from adding up to larger changes? I am asking over and over about this thing you must know about, and here we are after going round and round and you have continued to show that you know anything about this mechanism. And now you want to pretend like you are a victim.

You believe that a reptile evolved into a bird. I just simply don't believe it.

I believe it because there is evidence. Why do you 'simply not believe it'?

Kind of similar to you not believing that a man died on the cross for your sins?

Sin is your concept. Either way, I should probably be accountable for my own wrong doings. I like this scapegoat idea you propose though, as would Hitler.

Sounds absurd, right? Well, it sounds just as absurd to me, the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird or that life came from nonliving material. I don't see any evidence for it, so I have no reasons to believe that it occurred.

There is one big difference here. Evidence that dino's evolved into birds is abundant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/t ... VFNsmjysdU

For example, McCulloch offered this to which it seems FtK ingnored:
"But there is strong evidence that at one time, long ago, there were fish but no dogs.

And even longer before that, there was no life, PERIOD. So how did we get from literally no life whatsoever, to life, period.

I don't know. What does this have to do with your continued failure to describe a mechanism that stops small changes from adding up to large changes though? Are you just trying to deflect, hoping that readers wont notice?

Remember, this thread is about ABIOGENESIS...so instead of conveniently moving the conversation to how life evolved over time, how about trying to address the more serious problem for naturalists, which is how did life here in the first place.

I can't, because I don't know. You however reject that continued small changes in a population can add up to large changes, so this begs the question, what stops this? You don't seem to know, but you like to talk about humans getting wings.

I understand that since you don't have a CLUE as to how such a thing occurred, you'd like to conveniently shift gears to a topic that you think have more evidence supporting it (evolution), which is a text book example of putting the cart before the horse. But no, if you can't prove that life came from nonlife, then there is no evolution, is there?

Not true. Let us pretend for a moment that your favorite god concept created life. Now please explain the mechanism that is in place that stops small changes from adding up to large changes.

Fifteen hundred years ago, there were no speakers of English. But both common sense and observation show that everyone who speaks English learned it from someone else who speaks English. Similarly other languages. Greek speakers beget Greek speakers; Latin speakers beget Latin speakers; Hebrew speakers beget Hebrew speakers. No one gets up and says, "I'm going to speak a language that no one else speaks." How does a new language emerge? When everyone speaks a language indistinguishable from whatever language they were taught, how can a new language arise? Was there ever a first person to speak English? Answer those questions and you will understand evolution better."

And his rebuttal to this was...
"The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist."

Notice that this is again the cart before the horse. My question is about the ORIGINS of life, the universe, consciousness, and language. Since the naturalist cannot give a scientific explanation to address these questions (of origins), the only thing they can do is put the cart before the horse.

I willing to grant you (for this discussion) that your favorite god created life. What more do you want? Now do you understand the implications about how small changes in the English language added up to be, still English, but just a form of it that barely resembles English from hundreds of years ago? In language, like in evolution, I'm not aware of a mechanism that stops these small changes from adding up over time to become something that barely resembles its previous form.

Instead of addressing the origins of these things,

False. I have addressed this. I don't know and I'm not aware of anyone that knows. Yet you keep asking for some reason. Do you know the definition of insanity? Do you honestly expect someone to solve the mystery of how life started on this planet on this debate forum?

they want to instead talk about what happened AFTER these things originated...which is exactly what Clownboat is doing as he quotes someone addressing the language thing...but notice the person isn't addressing the origin of language. He is talking about stuff that happened after language originated.

Study what we do know, like for example, how languages change over time. Extrapolate back and we can form a hypothesis about how languages started out as primitive grunts and such. Similar hypothesis's can be made about how life originated, but no one on this planet that I'm aware of can provide the answer that you seek. You need to acknowledge this.

My question is about how did language originate and this was simply not addressed..

Not true. I just provided one hypothesis for you and you have been provided a modern example of languages changing over time.

which is why he correctly quoted me by saying "The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist"....which is was my attempt to get the topic back to ORIGINS, not what happened after it got here.

You will do anything to dodge the fact that you cannot point to a mechanism that must be in place if small changes do not add up to large changes.

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains this fact. You, like anyone else is free to offer up a better theory, but it must be testable and falsifiable.

Do you have a better theory that explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record?

See Genesis 1

You for some reason find a story told by desert nomads to be a better explanation. You are free to do so of course, but I find your reasoning wanting personally.

If you don't, perhaps you can complain about the currently accepted and tested theory that has made predictions that have been shown to be true.

Predictions like what?

There are many, why are you blind to this?
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-theo ... redictions

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 510 by Clownboat]

Like this post (3): Clownboat, rikuoamero, benchwarmer
Clownboat criticizes a post by For the Kingdom: Notice readers that For the Kingdom cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for small changes to not lead up to large changes.

“Notice readers that…..�

Oh my! Argumentum ad ignorantiam again, but, Clownboat, you won’t understand as you noted earlier. You are going to have to do, perhaps, a word search like you appear to perform for many of your other responses. I truly cannot see the reasoning in your statement. It is illogical to essentially state that if you can't prove it false then it is true. Irrational thinking. You and several of your buddies make similar illogical statements as it relates to the science within the theory of evolution.

Actually DBSmith, you will notice that I start addressing the readers when my debate partner is unwilling to evidence their claims.

For example, if someone has noticed that small changes occur in a population of animals, then given time, these small changes will add up to be larger changes.

Unless of course there is a mechanism in place to prevent small changes from adding up. Can you describe such a mechanism? If not, is it not logical to conclude that small will add up to large much like how seconds add up to being minutes?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 499 by Clownboat]

Clownboat wrote: Lots and lots of claims like I use to hear in church, but no evidence provided to show that he speaks the truth.

You must have attended or attend church at a university where many scholars attend with you to hear so much of what actually exists in the literature. Much of the "claims" as you like to call them, have been well documented in the literature for decades and need not be referenced as noted in my comments.

Again, irrational reasoning: argument ad hominem. ...your attempts to associate the scientific literature with church goers to discredit what is said. But, I could be wrong....and perhaps the goal is to make fun, collect points and make as many comments as possible in a digital game of sorts. Dunno....

I agree that you do not know.
Not sure the point of this post...
Did you have a point? Are you confused by the claims my church use to tell us? Is there a reason you only responded to this one point when obviously my point was to address the 'it's just a theory' statement?

Post 499 "Perhaps some people have never heard of the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory.
They are just 'theories' after all!

If only it was the hypothesis of evolution, then you would have a point."

Do you still feel that evolution just being a theory means we can ignore it (or whatever your point was about it being a theory)?
Do you understand what a theory is yet when it comes to science?

[benchwarmer]

This is still the cart before the horse fallacy. If you can't prove that abiogenesis is true, then you can't prove evolution to be true (macroevolution), on naturalism.

I'm still confused why you think evolution has absolutely anything to do with abiogenesis.

We know evolution happens, we can watch it in the lab. We can see the effects by studying the genetic makeup of any living creature.

Please, for the love of your favorite deity, tell us how the emergence of life (through a god, magic, abiogenesis, unicorn farts, whatever,...) has anything to do with the changes that happen when life reproduces.

I assume you agree that life reproduces.

I assume you also realize that at the time of reproduction, some small mutations can happen.

I'm also hoping that you realize only living organisms that survive long enough to reproduce, are the ones to reproduce.

Voila. In a nutshell, you agree with evolution.

If you are having trouble with any of those please explain the problem and forget about how life started. We are only discussing how it changes over time. We are not debating any made up versions of evolution, only the scientific one.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm still confused why you think evolution has absolutely anything to do with abiogenesis.

I thought I had explained thoroughly why, and instead of selectively quoting what I said, how about just addressing what I said point by point, because there was a lot more said besides what you quoted me as saying.

We know evolution happens, we can watch it in the lab. We can see the effects by studying the genetic makeup of any living creature.

See, if you notice even in your quote of me, I specifically said "...then you can't prove evolution to be true (macroevolution), on naturalism".

The term macroevolution is a pretty big distinction thrown in there, and no, we CAN'T watch macroevolution in the lab, and that is precisely my point; it is unobserved and to believe in it is to speculate, thus, have faith.

Please, for the love of your favorite deity, tell us how the emergence of life (through a god, magic, abiogenesis, unicorn farts, whatever,...) has anything to do with the changes that happen when life reproduces.

First off, the changes that you claim happen has yet to be unobserved and is currently scientifically unproven. That is first. Second, it is simple...and I will humor you by giving you a full break down, and it goes a little something like this..

To my knowledge, MOST of you on here are atheists/naturalists, meaning that you do not believe in God and you live your lives as if God doesn't exist, and you don't believe in a supernatural reality, and the buck stops with nature. Correct?

That being said, if God or any supernatural deity and or creator DOESN'T exist, then abiogenesis must be true, right? Because life began to exist, and if God is taken out of the equation, life could have only originated naturally, correct?

This is law of excluded middle, which is common sense that if you ONLY have two options, and one is negated, then the other won wins by default. So if God doesn't exist, then nature (abiogenesis) wins by default.

But wait, abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, and it could in fact be FALSE. So therefore, if abiogenesis could be false, then any byproducts or effects of it (macroevolution) could also be false. So if abiogenesis isn't a brute scientific fact (on naturalism), then evolution also isn't a brute scientific fact.

So on naturalism, evolution CANNOT be a brute scientific fact. Now, the naturalism will then say "Look buddy, macroevolution occurs, even if God orchestrated it, it occurs".......ok, well, if God orchestrated it, then that is one helleva defeater of atheism, isn't it?

So either way, to believe in macroevolution, you either have to place your faith in an unproven scientific theory (abiogenesis), which would suggest that it isn't only believers that have faith in something...OR, you have to believe that evolution can only occur with divine intervention.

Either way, you've got problems.

I assume you agree that life reproduces.

Sure, that is what I believe, but that isn't what abiogenesis is all about, is it?

I assume you also realize that at the time of reproduction, some small mutations can happen.

Sure, I may put chrome wheels on my jeep wrangler...but it is still a jeep wrangler, isn't it?

I'm also hoping that you realize only living organisms that survive long enough to reproduce, are the ones to reproduce.

Voila. In a nutshell, you agree with evolution.

Yeah but, what does any of that have to do with a reptile evolving into a bird?

If you are having trouble with any of those please explain the problem and forget about how life started.

Sure, "forget about how life got started on a thread of which the subject is based upon the concept of how life got started".

We are only discussing how it changes over time. We are not debating any made up versions of evolution, only the scientific one.

No one is denying that changes occur over time, the argument is over the levels of the changes. I say there are limits to the changes, evolutionists say otherwise. I say there are limits to the changes because I only SEE limits to the changes. Evolutionists say otherwise, and they based this upon things that they never observed and there is no experiment which led them to such conclusions.

All speculative.

[benchwarmer]

I'm still confused why you think evolution has absolutely anything to do with abiogenesis.

I thought I had explained thoroughly why, and instead of selectively quoting what I said, how about just addressing what I said point by point, because there was a lot more said besides what you quoted me as saying.

We know evolution happens, we can watch it in the lab. We can see the effects by studying the genetic makeup of any living creature.

See, if you notice even in your quote of me, I specifically said "...then you can't prove evolution to be true (macroevolution), on naturalism".

The term macroevolution is a pretty big distinction thrown in there, and no, we CAN'T watch macroevolution in the lab, and that is precisely my point; it is unobserved and to believe in it is to speculate, thus, have faith.

There is your problem right there. It is not called "The scientific theory of macroevolution" so you are arguing against a strawman. It is simply called evolution. Your trying to put extra labels on it to somehow make if fit both reality and your belief system is where things go wrong.

You are basically trying to tell us that evolution happens, but at some unknown point it stops happening because you can't watch millions/billions of years worth of it happen in front of you.

Please, for the love of your favorite deity, tell us how the emergence of life (through a god, magic, abiogenesis, unicorn farts, whatever,...) has anything to do with the changes that happen when life reproduces.

First off, the changes that you claim happen has yet to be unobserved and is currently scientifically unproven. That is first. Second, it is simple...and I will humor you by giving you a full break down, and it goes a little something like this..

I think you meant 'observed' not 'unobserved'? Are you already forgetting the lab experiments with bacteria where you can watch them evolve? If you are keen, you can go get your DNA compared to your parents. Are you trying to tell us it will be exactly the same?

To my knowledge, MOST of you on here are atheists/naturalists, meaning that you do not believe in God and you live your lives as if God doesn't exist, and you don't believe in a supernatural reality, and the buck stops with nature. Correct?

Wrong. While I don't believe the Christian portrayal of a god exists, I don't rule out god/gods entirely because I have no evidence to make such a claim. At this point I've seen no evidence to show that they exist either. Essentially, I'm agnostic.

That being said, if God or any supernatural deity and or creator DOESN'T exist, then abiogenesis must be true, right? Because life began to exist, and if God is taken out of the equation, life could have only originated naturally, correct?

Except I don't claim any god not to exist, therefore I cannot rule out any hypothesis as to the origins of life. So, wrong again.

Do you have evidence one way or the other?

This is law of excluded middle, which is common sense that if you ONLY have two options, and one is negated, then the other won wins by default. So if God doesn't exist, then nature (abiogenesis) wins by default.

And now you are just arguing with yourself and your own strawman. I'm saying I have no idea how life started. It may have been a god. We don't know. Thus, I make no claims as to what happened.

But wait, abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, and it could in fact be FALSE. So therefore, if abiogenesis could be false, then any byproducts or effects of it (macroevolution) could also be false. So if abiogenesis isn't a brute scientific fact (on naturalism), then evolution also isn't a brute scientific fact.

Correct, abiogenesis may not be what happened. Evolution, however, still has nothing to do with how life started, so claiming your stawman (macroevolution, whatever that is exactly in your mind) is somehow related and also false has no meaning.

So on naturalism, evolution CANNOT be a brute scientific fact.

Do you mean your meaning of evolution or the actual scientific one we observe?

Now, the naturalism will then say "Look buddy, macroevolution occurs, even if God orchestrated it, it occurs".......ok, well, if God orchestrated it, then that is one helleva defeater of atheism, isn't it?

Now you are mixing your strawman of evolution (macroevolution) with the existence of your favorite god with a side of apologetics.

We are not trying to defeat Christianity here, we are trying to explain what the scientific theory of evolution actually is and make it clear it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

So either way, to believe in macroevolution, you either have to place your faith in an unproven scientific theory (abiogenesis), which would suggest that it isn't only believers that have faith in something...OR, you have to believe that evolution can only occur with divine intervention.

I don't know what your "macroevolution" really is, so no, I likely don't believe in it. I do believe the actual scientific theory of evolution to be correct.

Either way, you've got problems.

Oh, trust me, I've got problems, but nothing to do with my understanding of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

I assume you agree that life reproduces.

Sure, that is what I believe, but that isn't what abiogenesis is all about, is it?

Now you are getting it. Correct, reproduction has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

I assume you also realize that at the time of reproduction, some small mutations can happen.

Sure, I may put chrome wheels on my jeep wrangler...but it is still a jeep wrangler, isn't it?

You agree, then give an example that doesn't involve reproduction. Did your jeep wrangler appear as the result of two other vehicles mating? I fail to see your analogy, but you at least agree with the point. So far so good.

I'm also hoping that you realize only living organisms that survive long enough to reproduce, are the ones to reproduce.

Voila. In a nutshell, you agree with evolution.

Yeah but, what does any of that have to do with a reptile evolving into a bird?

So yes you agree, but are simply baffled how scientists have decided to name species? As has been explained countless times, whatever 'thing/name/label' something starts as, it continues to belong to that 'thing/name/label' after reproduction regardless of the number of generations (evolution). Thus you seem simply confused why we choose to eventually label things a certain way.

Let's try an example. You agree there are dogs yes? Do you know how many names there are for the various kinds of dogs now? Your question about reptiles from millions of years ago evolving into what we now label as birds is basically the same as asking how can labradoodles have evolved from labradors and poodles. Simple, we just put some artificial labels on things to better explain the differences we see. That dog doesn't look like a labrador or a poodle anymore, so we call it a labradoodle. That reptile doesn't look like it used to, so we call it a bird now. The thing that seems to be confusing for you is the radical number of changes that have taken place in millions of years of reproduction.

If you are having trouble with any of those please explain the problem and forget about how life started.

Sure, "forget about how life got started on a thread of which the subject is based upon the concept of how life got started".

Only in the context of explaining how the are different. That some choose to lump them under the same concept is the whole reason we are having the current discussion. If only those that actually understood the scientific theory of evolution where taking part in this thread, the topic would have never come up. We would simply be discussing the various abiogenesis hypotheses and why each one may have some merit. If you dig back in the thread, maybe it will be interesting to see who first brought up evolution and why they brought it up. Was it to explain they are not related or was it to somehow cast doubt on abiogenenis because they are related?

We are only discussing how it changes over time. We are not debating any made up versions of evolution, only the scientific one.

No one is denying that changes occur over time, the argument is over the levels of the changes. I say there are limits to the changes, evolutionists say otherwise. I say there are limits to the changes because I only SEE limits to the changes. Evolutionists say otherwise, and they based this upon things that they never observed and there is no experiment which led them to such conclusions.

All speculative.

Excellent. Please elaborate on these limits that you speak of. Essentially, you agree that evolution takes place, you just have trouble when the time frame exceeds what you can see with your own eyes. This leaves you kind of stuck if you are only going to believe the changes you can see happen before you. That's one of the reasons we keep pointing you to the bacteria experiments. Those things can reproduce many more times than a dog can in your lifetime. Thus the changes you can observe give you a glimpse of what could happen if you could watch a dog reproduce millions/billions of times.