GENIUS FORUMS

In the ongoing debates of human evolution, should one truly rule out the relevance of abiogenesis?

Tobitobi wrote:In the ongoing debates of human evolution, should one truly rule out the relevance of abiogenesis?

Yes! For the below reasons:

Evolution and Abiogenisis are about different things. They are related, certainly, but are ultimately different disciplines. The former is essentially about explaining diversity and changes through which this occurs; the latter is about origins. Evolution is not about the origin of life.

Dan Rowden wrote:Evolution and Abiogenisis are about different things. They are related, certainly, but are ultimately different disciplines. The former is essentially about explaining diversity and changes through which this occurs; the latter is about origins. Evolution is not about the origin of life.

Maybe I should clarify 'debate of human evolution'. I didn't mean debating its mechanics, rather than its substance. As stated, the two are related, so why can't they both exist in the same argument in harmony? I guess i'm asking if one is a determinant of the other. Forgive me if the same response applies.

Whether they can exist in the same argument in harmony rather depends on the argument in question. It's entirely possible that they can depending on that argument. They can and do in the "argument" against creationism and intelligent design.

Dan Rowden wrote:Whether they can exist in the same argument in harmony rather depends on the argument in question. It's entirely possible that they can depending on that argument. They can and do in the "argument" against creationism and intelligent design.

Interesting! Care to refine? [btw this isn't a trap]

Well, it's not that complicated: creationism and intelligent design are (aside from the same thing in reality) attempts to explain both the origins of life and bio-diversity, so both evolutionary theory and abiogenesis have their place in the debate - such that it is.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, it's not that complicated: creationism and intelligent design are (aside from the same thing in reality) attempts to explain both the origins of life and bio-diversity, so both evolutionary theory and abiogenesis have their place in the debate - such that it is.

Lets assume the said arguement in question is about the origin of evolution. Not necessarily related to abiogenesis in the respective sense, but basically. Would it be logical to argue that the origin of evolution is irrelevant because they are not the same principles, even though they are obviously related if not directly? e.g.

Creationalist: "What scientific law is there substantiating that life could ever spurr from a non-living substance?"

Evolutionalist: "You obviously don't understand evolution. Aside from your colloquial reference to the matter, you fail in realizing that evolution has nothing to do with how life began, only how life evolved, hence the name"

Creationalist: "This is you dodging the fact. Even if there were no coherent relation, it's obvious that life had to have started somewhere. The principles of fixation itself suggest that everything was at 0 or 1% at some point."

That was an example, but this is generally the age old debate about evolution. Disregarding who's logic is more aesthetically attractive, I wonder if you see anything wrong with this..

I think if you have an actual point here you should just make it, because I'm not quite seeing it thus far. Evolution does not refute or disprove or what-have-you - creationism or intelligent design in the sense of their claims for life's origins. Evolutionary theory makes their claims about bio-diversity redundant. It's possible that the mechanisms for such diversity were pre-built into life by an intelligent designer/creator. Evolution cannot say much about this claim. Being an historical claim, abiogenesis will never be able to disprove creationism either, because it itself cannot be genuinely proved. You can show how it might well have happened, but you can't show that it did. Evolution doesn't have this problem to the same extent (although in a radically skeptical sense all science that deals with the past must). This is because evolution can be shown to be happening right now.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think if you have an actual point here you should just make it, because I'm not quite seeing it thus far. Evolution does not refute or disprove or what-have-you - creationism or intelligent design in the sense of their claims for life's origins. Evolutionary theory makes their claims about bio-diversity redundant. It's possible that the mechanisms for such diversity were pre-built into life by an intelligent designer/creator. Evolution cannot say much about this claim. Being an historical claim, abiogenesis will never be able to disprove creationism either, because it itself cannot be genuinely proved. You can show how it might well have happened, but you can't show that it did. Evolution doesn't have this problem to the same extent (although in a radically skeptical sense all science that deals with the past must). This is because evolution can be shown to be happening right now.

Dan Rowden wrote:Whether they can exist in the same argument in harmony rather depends on the argument in question.

Tobitobi wrote:Lets assume the said arguement in question is about the origin of evolution. Not necessarily related to abiogenesis in the respective sense, but basically. Would it be logical to argue that the origin of evolution is irrelevant because they are not the same principles, even though they are obviously related if not directly? e.g.

Sorry if I have not made my self very clear. There is no "point" to be made, rather than just a question of logistics, in which you have answered at this point. Thank you sir!

Arggghhhhhh! I am born! Like Kong kids! I'm going to nintendo until the break of day bitches.

Dan'll be so pissed in the morning, he'll get back into bed, dream himself anywhere but here and wake up yesterday.

Zag, take your temporary banishment like a man and fuck off. If you don't, it won't be temporary.

Dan Rowden wrote:Evolution is not about the origin of life.

Agreed. It's a method in common between biology and thought that refines what has originated.