Are you aware that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

O rwly?

Yes, really. You should have learned this in high school bio if not earlier.

Sorry, I thought that the theory of evolution was rooted in abiogenesis.

Is this accurate? I mean I understand the frustration some may feel when people lump these concepts together but they are clearly related no? (I never took Bio).

Abiogenesis is about how life arose from non-living matter. Evolution is about descent with modification and related mechanisms. So clearly different areas of study... different chapters but same book IMO

EDIT: Louie if your point is that ToE stands alone apart from any study of abiogenesis then yeah ok np

Well it depends on what viewpoint you take. The fact that abiogenisis did( or didnt) happen has no bearing on the evolutionary process. That is, life could have arisen via gods, abiogenisis, or flying invisible teapots, and if evolution is true, it doesnt matter what way life arose, natural selection, mutation , etc were still the ways in which life diversified.

That makes sense. I was under the impression that evolution was taught hand in hand with abiogenesis, not that the there could be another explanation such as teapots or gods, but that it's rooted in the fact that life arose in that specific way.

Edit: I see your point, I'm daft in this area

Abiogenesis may or may not fall under the purview of "evolution," but it certainly is relevant when you are discussing diversity in the context that we are. The atheist promulgates materialism, for the most part. It always seemed to me to be a cop-out to try to hand-wave concerns about abiogen: "Oh well, but that's not evolution." But questions about abio speak to the very heart of the interpretation of naturalism and its assumptions.

More problematic are the ways in which actual scientists in the field describe abio- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../331612a0.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10....052-010-0209-1

Wiki:

Abiogenesis describes a process of how life (might have) started in the first place. Evolution explains what happens once life already exists. It makes no claims about why there is life, only why life looks like what we see today.
That's why evolution is still very much compatible with a theistic/deistic world view. God didn't have to create fully developed human beings. He could have just lit a spark of microscopic life, let evolution take its course and ta-daaaa! .... Humans.

TL;DR You don't have to become an expert to see where the consensus is.

I felt much the same way, and it basically halted my research into evolution for a number of years after leaving my particular religion. (I also intended to find the One True Faith, but felt the same kind of paralysis regarding different doctrines ("There are experts on both sides of the Trinity argument, and the Hellfire argument, and the Grace/Works argument, and the...))

When I finally returned to the issue, I was struck by the numbers of scientists in the life sciences who accept evolution. Depending on how they're counted, it's in the mid- to high-90% range. My old church literature strongly implied that the numbers were closer to 55-45%, and those 55% were in on a global Satanic conspiracy to blind people and lead them away from the worship of the One True God. Granted, we can't settle an issue by an appeal to the majority, but on this topic the consensus is astoundingly one-sided among people who specialize in the subject.

When I looked at the apologetic responses, very few were specialists on the subjects they were so sure the (actual) specialists were wrong about. One guy who writes a bunch of anti-evolution papers includes his name and lots of letters behind it (they get their own line). Those letters are lab tech certificates he's earned. Guys writing papers debunking radiometric dating have CS degrees. One guy is a librarian. One guy is a computer programmer and styles himself an "information expert" and is on the DNA is Information therefore God bandwagon.

And what astonishes me is how many of these guys who actually do have advanced degrees and work at places like the Discovery Institute don't write about their areas of expertise. It's like they get the PhD Biologist to write about cosmological fine-tuning, and the PhD Physicist to write about irreducible complexity.

Speaking of bias, the Discovery Institute, ICS, and other groups have a Statement of Faith declaring that where their theology and science conflict, they must go with what the Bible says.

BS on the above. Show me where the Discovery Institute's Statement of Faith says what you claim it to say.

Well, I understand your previous frustration. I think it also comes with the territory of reading apologetics and watching debates on the subject, where there is more likely to be conflicts. Especially when you devote some time to reading a book, only to find out that half of the points have been refuted, and not understanding exactly why.

What brought this on was that Lemonzest had recommended a book, and it was immediately refuted by someone, and it reminded me of all my frustrations with sifting through books only to find that many people disagree.

concerns about abiogenesis have no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. You are welcome to have concerns about abiogenesis ( and about evolution), but concerns about one does not mean that the other is false.

Monsieur Naked,

DeuceKicker made some very good points about educational background. I don't really take anyones opinion (on evolution) seriously unless they specialize in biology and at a very minimum have a B Sc.

I will listen to anyones opinion but persons with higher education in biology will (obviously) speak with more authority. The words and publications of those specializing in biology should carry more weight in our minds.

Miller has a Phd. in biology and works as a cell biologist so I give substantial weight to his works. He literally wrote some of the textbooks used in US schools. The consensus really is clear among those specializing in biology. This is one of the things that really got me thinking initially. I read the wiki on evolution and it clearly stated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

If there is consensus among biologists then who am I to disagree? I don't really need to read the work of each and every biologist out there. Nor do I need to explore every fringe theory under the sun.

I bring this on myself to an extent, because I love watching debates, so I'm practically inviting conflicting information.

So would you say that it's safe to read Miller and it not be a waste of my time?

Yes. One reason I liked "Finding Darwin's God" so much is because Miller basically makes a case for theistic evolution. For Miller evolution is not in question, evolution is simply the most accurate depiction we have of natural history.

He does a good job of diffusing all the controversy around evolution. Evolution is just natural history... thats it. Evolution doesn't necessarily lend credibility to atheism or theism. Whether or not evolution indicates a God exists is up for debate.

Miller is not (AFAIK) presenting any views that are radical or fringe. When he does state his opinion or something that is controversial he will explain both sides of the argument. He quite plainly outlines the mechanisms of evolution and some of the science that supports it.

I look forward to reading it. I'm going to see if he has any videos or debates to get a feel for him.

Naked,

I like this brief speal by him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4zVcRgTz0

If you see something interesting on the youtubes please post it here for discussion

Here's an interesting talk he gave about the Kitzmiller v Dover trial (in which ID advocates tried to get creationis.... ahem... Intelligent Design introduced into the curriculum). He played a large part in preparing the legal team, and testified at the trial.

He also talks about irreducible complexity, human chromosome 2 and chimps, and one other topic that I can't recall (Neanderthal DNA?). Pretty compelling information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Just watched the whole thing. I'd forgotten all about the fused chromosome and sat in wonder again as I watched the explanation.

I think the 'correction' you are looking for is cdesign proponentsists

btw, chromosome 2 is one of the most satisfying pieces of evidence for common descent, the hypothesis was put forward before the chimpanzee genome had been sequenced i.e. it was a scientific prediction made ahead of any results being known, and it was testable.

Another is the insertion of endogenous retrovirus into the genome (for much the same reasons).

Yeah. It's pretty strong evidence. When you look to a creationist response, it pretty much amounts to "all this proves is common descent."

I found some links that attempted to rebut this here and here.

And of course, answers in genesis ...

The Discovery Institute behaves like a stealth organisation (their Wedge Strategy has been widely reported), so such a statement of faith won't be found on any of their documents.

The organisations that are not trying to hide their Christian fundamentalism proudly proclaim that the Bible is the only ultimate truth and its contents are the starting points for their ... errr ... research.

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." CMI

"ICS directors hold that the Holy Bible is God's inspired word and is accurate and inerrant in its original autographs. Chapters 1-11 of the book of Genesis are foundational to the Christian faith and are historical narrative. God created everything in six 24 hour days less than 7,000 years ago, and most of the fossils in the sediments of the earth's crust are a result of the worldwide Flood of Genesis an awful judgment of God about 4,500 years ago. As a result of Adam's Fall in the Garden of Eden all mankind is separated by sin from God. Mankind's only path to reconciliation with God is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior." ICS

"The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological." ICR

Yeah, I've meant to get back to that point, but I've been very busy. The Discovery Institute has completely redone their web site, and taken down the statement of faith (as have many other similar organizations with similar statements), but I think I have a screenshot of it on an old computer.

Evolution: Mr.Deity-ified & PZ-ified