Starboy

First origins are always a tricky issue and I suspect abiogenesis is no different. But is it a really crucial part of the theory of evolution? Isn’t the most impressive part of the theory how it explains the variety and history of life that we see today?

Why are creationist so hung up on it?

Starboy

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Hallucigenia

Abiogenesis is most definitely not an important part of evolution. I quote Darwin, from Origin, in his answer to the alleged problem of the eye:
How life first came to exist is irrelevent to the mechanisms which control evolution.

The fascinating thing is that creationists rely on abiogenesis...that is, after all, what the whole "six days of creation" story is all about, right? Life from non-life.

Creationists don't seem to grasp that as they rail against the supposed fallacy of abiogenesis. Perhaps what they really mean to argue against is "naturalistic abiogenesis", but few, if any, ever give enough thought to their arguments to make that distinction.

[corrected typo]

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Hallucigenia ]</p>

Dr.GH

YECs are forced to either capitulate(sp?) or look to any scientifically literate person like a loonie.

There is no young earth science, there is no alternative to common descent, there is no alternative to the known mechanisms for induced genetic novelty.

What they can cling to is the unresolved issues around abiogensis of organic molecules, adn the origin of life. The chemistry locks out a good number of people, the geological data is difficult to come by, and there are many researchers who make strong critical statements about other peoples approaches. This provides a great creato opp' for quote mining.

Evolutionary biology, and ecology does not need to refer to abiogensis. Creatonists need to cling to abiogensis as the only unresolved issue that they can try to shove God into.

I wonder why creatos insist that God have a job? Or, would life be just a hobby?