Abiogenesis? the new Catch-word for evolution?

Question

From Wikipedia I viewed this definition of abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

How many of you saying 'evolution' does not deal with the origins of life when the work provided by the modern 'father of evolution'-Charles Darwin, entitled his work, "Origins of Life"?
Are you evolutionists ignorant of this?

Answer 1

kewl!
yah, I noticed this on yesterdays evolution exchange.
NOW, all the evolutionists are pointing at abiogenesis as the new explaination for the origin of life.
After a quick review of this (to me) new terminology regarding the origin of life from non life, the glaring lack of scienctific proof immediately bubbles forth.
Seems like the so called science minded persons here at R+S have been playing the 'shell game' with truthful info.

Answer 2

Abiogenesis, is very sketchy if life appeared via this process if would break many theories that are currently pretty well accepted in the fields of Biology.
Stanley Miller attempted an experiment which at first glance seemed to be a success in proving spontaneous life appearing. Later however it was shown he did not have the right chemicals in the early Earth's atmosphere, and when attempted again with the current elemental makeup it did not produce the amino acids produced in the first attemt.

Answer 3

Re: Your Add. Dtls." Aboigenesis is not evolution. You vastly lower all credibility when the title of Darwin's masterpiece is:
"On the Origin of Species..."

At least get the easiest, most basic things down - like a simple title. ... Then, maybe, even try reading the book.

Answer 4

You seem to think that abiogenesis replaces evolution.

Abiogenesis deals with the ORIGINS of life.

The study of evolution does not, and has never attempted to explain the origins of life.

By the way, "abiogenesis" is not a new word.

Edit: Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species". NOT "Origins of Life".

Answer 5

evolution theory isn't about explaining life's origins, but life's diversity.

We don't know how it started (as the article says), there are ideas floating around.

That we descended from earlier species, and how that works, is what evolution is all about.

Nothing to see here, folks; move along.

Answer 6

We've been speaking of Abiogenesis for years.

Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not it's origins. Is English as hard for you as biology?

Answer 7

Different name but same old garbage, whatever happened to
natural selection, neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium etc,
once more they are moving the goalposts to suit.

Answer 8

yep, and the evolutionists are trying to say that these things are true?
abiogenesis? another theory to calm the minds of those who believe in evolution yet have to face the astonishing lack of 'scientific' proof.
Abiogenesis/evolution: the new group of the scientific equivalent of those who believed that the world was flat!

Answer 9

no.

you can accept evolution without accepting abiogenesis. one does not require the other.

and this idea has been around for a LONG time--it's not something new.

Answer 10

Uh...... abiogenesis isn't a part of evolution. And no, this isn't a "new term" or a "new idea".