It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by atlasastro
Well, I can't speak for him, but I can still give you an answer.
You believe Abiogenesis has no precise or logical relevance to the matter of Evolution?
The origin of life is not pertinent to evolution,
Evolutionary study is the study of processes of change in inherited traits of a population of organic life over successive generations. At one point, there was the evolution of matter into organic life or the first generation, that would be origins, but we call the study of that Abiogenesis.
simply because evolutionary study focuses on what life does.
A field of Biology is evolutionary biology(although evolutionary biology is the foundation of all biology) which is concerned with the study of the origins of species, the change in that species over time, diversity and replication or multiplication from a common descent.
So why does this not include a concern with the origins of the first species of life, again this is labelled as Abiogenesis and distanced from Evolution.
But anyway, I understand your point. But Abiogenesis involves the evolution of non-organic material that "evolves" to become biological life. Abiogenesis is the very point at which Evolution began.
The origins of life are certainly pertinent to evolution. And this is critical to the foundations of the criticism that evolution suffers from.
I understand the concepts and the differences, but my question relates to whether these issues should be separate, given that Abiogenesis is used to create doubt about evolution.
We think life evolved from a state of non-life to biological life. That is why people are studying the evolution of chemical processes believed to be essential to all life in order to explain this. Papers I have read actually have the titles like "How did evolution start" etc and they deal with what is essentially abiogenesis.
Really. That is an amazing observation.
If there is evolution to study, then life is already present; if there is no life, there's no evolution to study.
If there is no life, then we don't have to worry about how it started or how it led to the processes we observe, like evolution!
You might as well be asking why Music theory does not discuss the origins of the universe.
Are you saying that Music theory is a process that explains the development or evolution of the Universe that we observe, after the universe was created?
You analogy is quite frankly ludicrous, if not asinine.
Evolution is a process, I am simply asking the OP if the very EVOLUTION of that process itself should be distanced from Evolution as a theory in general and I am also asking if the lack of our understanding is a valid criticism used by creationists. As it is a popular one yet rarely discussed with depth in many threads I read.
Originally posted by Serizawa
I always wondered why we are able to excavate dinosaur remains that are millions of years old, early mamals, primitive beings such as the neanderthal/homo erectus.....but have never been able to find the missing link, surely there must be millions of remainds scattered throughout the globe, at a relatively shallow depth? Since they are supposedly newer species than the listed.
Originally posted by nagabonar
My Question: If humans have evolved from monkeys ...i dont know 500 000 years ago? how will humans look and behave like, in the same time span since we evolved from monkeys,in the future?
[edit on 28-8-2010 by nagabonar]
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
My point of asking the questions I did, is to point out that there is no solid fact. You may have an educated guess to answer these questions, but no fact to back up your claim.
This entire thread is nothing more than an excersice in educated BELIEF. You believe it to be true, just as a creationist believes God made us. Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. But I think that it's misleading to start a thread like this and not add a disclaimer that says..."Ask me, I'll give you my best guess but I can't prove it."
By the way, I am not a Christian.