Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Related claims 6 See Also 7 Acknowledgments

Claim

Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.

Source

• Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 23.
• Yahya, Harun (2005). How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science. Darwinism Refuted. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.

Responses

1. Evolution assumes that living things exist, and as long as living things did come to be, evolution doesn't care how they came to be. Evolution is blithely unconcerned with the precise method by which living things came to be, whether that is abiogenesis, panspermia, creationist poofing, or some other method as yet unconceived.
2. This is analogous to the claim that the theory of celestial mechanics is baseless without a theory of how the Solar System came into existence. Real theories start by trying to explain what we observe directly and new theories then work their way backwards to try to explain phenomena that are more fundamental, but further removed from direct observation.
3. The theory of evolution is solidly based on a rather large quantity of evidence. Since none of this evidence is refuted by the fact that we don't yet have a solid theory of abiogenesis, it's just silly to claim that evolution is rendered "baseless" by the lack of a theory of abiogenesis.
4. Most creationists accept "microevolution". This claim doesn't explain why macroevolution is baseless without abiogenesis, yet microevolution isn't.
5. Probably the real reason why many creationists want to tie evolution and abiogenesis together is that evolution is a far better evidenced and organized theory than abiogenesis is. By connecting the two they hope to break evolution down by attacking an entirely different (and admittedly much weaker) concept.
6. Little things like the documentation of pigeon breed lineages, observations of changes in the ornamentation of trilobite, snail and brachiopod fossils, and the pedigree of rose and orchid cultivars seem to do well without the need for a theory of abiogenesis.
7. Key portions of abiogenesis can be, and have been, replicated in laboratory conditions, whether it is the artificial synthesis of amino acids, or the simulation of intracellular processes inside of a test tube. Whether this is the exact process that occurred in the early Earth is irrelevant: it has been shown that organic precursors to DNA can be made from wholly inorganic reagents. See Miller-Urey experiment.
8. Even if evolution were baseless without a theory of abiogenesis, this would have no effect on it being true because scientists do in fact have theories of abiogenesis.
9. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Inconsistency (microevolution is handled differently)
• Straw man (evolution doesn't need abiogenesis)
• Suppressed Evidence (evolution does have a theory of abiogenesis. It's called "abiogenesis")
• God of the Gaps (If you can't explain abiogenesis, then creationism must be true.)

Related claims

• Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis)
• The odds of life forming are incredibly small
• DNA needs proteins to form; Proteins need DNA
• Why isn't new life still being generated today?
• Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally
• Early molecules would have decayed
• Miller's experiments had invalid assumption of type of atmosphere
• Life uses only left-handed amino acids
• Abiogenesis is speculative, without evidence
• Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules

See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

• Cubist
• Steinsky