Wednesday, 30 October 2013

The separation of Biological evolution and Abiogenesis

Evolutionists will commonly argue that creationists indulge in a mistake in thinking when they conflate biological evolution with abiogenesis.

However, this whole issue is actually an example of passing-the-book, through a subtle fallacy called Begging-The-Question.

It is actually an implication of biological evolution, that if biological evolution happened, you would need to start out with some form of simple organism, for the alleged evolution to act upon.

Therefore, to ask evolutionists for their theory to explain how this is possible, is actually a sound request.

To solve this evolutionary stumbling block, scientists have separated the two topics, in a subtle way, so that people are tricked into believing that abiogenesis is a separate matter, rather than being the love-child of evolution. The fact is, biological evolution gave birth to abiogenesis and then gave up abiogenesis, for adoption.

Imagine a government were in office, and to avoid taking the blame they said, "we are in this mess now because of the previous government, as we inherited this mess, therefore we had to take these drastic measures we are now taking".

As you can see, it can be hard to spot the mistake in their argument. The mistake is that they have secretly assumed that their policy was correct, by blaming the previous governmental body. It is a sleight of hand, as in reality, another policy might have prevented the present mess.

CONCLUSION: Since biological evolution directly implies the problem of an abiogenesis, it is answerable for it, as without biological evolution, nobody would have to deal with an abiogenesis, therefore an abiogenesis is only a result of an assumption that biological evolution happened. It's circular, to prove bio you assume abio, to prove abio you assume bio. And round and round it goes, therefore nobody has to keep the ball, they just throw it to eachother. What is the ball, Watson? The ball is immense design-complexity. It can't be answered for, abiogenesis woefully fails, and biological evolution passes the problem back to abiogenesis.


In order to biologically evolve, you need an abiogenesis of a first form, an ultimate ancestor.
In order to have an abiogenesis, you need a biological evolution.(because it is only invoked because of evolution, obviously a creation-model doesn't require it)
ERGO you need abiogenesis in order for biological evolution to be true, and you need biological evolution in order for abiogenesis to be true.

The only point of abiogenesis is to have a first lump of clay for evolution to work on. Without evolution, there isn't a need for abiogenesis because then organisms would be explained as coming into being fully formed and complex. So the circularity of the syllogism is unavoidable.

One thing is clear, abiogenesis is a monstrously absurd belief that is only granted on evolution's behalf, and everyone knows it, evos and creos alike. Think about it, even if you have compelling evidence of evolution, it couldn't have happened because abiogenesis clearly didn't. So you can see WHY evolutionists want to disassociate themselves from the abiogenesis-belief system, otherwise they have to admit that evolution is at least partially, a belief-system.

Clever evolutionists will protest against the premise that you need evolution to be true in order to have an abiogenesis, but if they are intellectually honest, they will concede that abiogenesis is only an implication of evolution. Darwin's warm pond that created a protein, is an excuse for his theory, because there is no reality to an ultimate ancestor, don't tell me that trees, fleas, peas and hairy knees are ultimately descended from an ancestor, without proving it!


  1. Um...wouldn't we actually have to HAVE a theory for abiogenesis before you could proclaim that it fails to explain the immense complexity we see in modern biology? Is it really logical to jump the gun this way?


    1. I understand your point but whether it's a theory, a belief or a fallacy, the point is, it is a CERTAIN implication of evolutionary thinking. Without a primitive beginning, an ancestor, the phylogenetic tree has no roots.

    2. That's the point? What happened to your claim that you (or someone) has evaluated a theory that DOES NOT EXIST YET and concluded that it fails to explain observations that have been made? How do you get to make a statement like that? Draw the line.

  2. What Mike does not understand is that evolution does not require abiogenesis. All evolution requires is life, whether it got here by abiogenesis or through magical poofing by a deity.

    1. Frank, let's not presume you know what I do or do not understand, as that is an extraneous and indirect attempt at add hominem, the attempt to make it LOOK like I am merely confused. So that's your first FALLACY rebutted. You should have stated nothing about the person, in order to avoid the fallacy, you clearly don't understand that a statement about the person is ad hominem, so it seems out of both of us, you are the confused person.

      It's not that I am saying you don't need life in order for evolution happen, my point is that abiogenesis can't really be divorced from evolution because evolution history leads to a primitive form. Yes, you can say God created the lifeform, but even then you must assume a primitive lifeform. There are no primitive lifeforms, they would only exist from an abiogenesis. The reality is that we have fully designed lifeforms.

      ERGO the only logical reason to believe in a primitive form, is to assume that you start with such a form, for the same of evolution. Such a form is only relevant to evolution, it is not relevant to reality.

    2. Wiz, it's an ad hominem only if one argues against the argument BY attacking the person. Making comments about the person is not always ad hominem.
      Looking through your site, there are a lot of things you say that are very much in error. We can either conclude that you don't really know, say, the actual definition of biological evolution, or we can conclude you do know it but dishonestly post something completely different for the purpose of making your point.
      Your own definition of 'evolution' made in one of your first posts says that evolution is something that happens to organisms.
      So things that are not organisms yet are not subject to evolutionary study. By your definition, anyway. So your argument here is in contradiction to your January 2010 post. ERGO, you contradict yourself and your entire point here is a non-starter.

    3. missiltowe, a comment about the person is ad hominem, because it takes the focus away from the argument the person has made, and places it on the person. By Frank saying I don't understand evolution, he and the readers don't have to deal with my arguments, or even if they THINK they are dealing with them, they can UNDERVALUE my deductions by pretending I am a confused ignoramus, to the readers.

      You THINK you've made some essential points here in my blog, but the logical notation I have used has clearly not yet been understood. It takes hard work to figure out logic because it is like a mathematical sum, you can't just read the workings out of the sum in order to figure out the sum, you must understand the way it was worked out.

      The "he doesn't understand evolution" argument, is the most common fallacy evolutionists make, don't forget, your talking to someone that has debated evolutionists since 2003, and such an argument can only be based on ignorance, but if someone disagrees with evolution, or sees the evidence a different way, this does not mean he doesn't understand evolution. There are PHD Creationists that understand evolution and agree with my arguments, which is another logical deduction, you can deduce that my understanding is not necessarily confused if a PHD biologist can agree with me. So we can stop that ad hominem nonsense right now if you want, because I am not stupid enough to fall for it.

      NONE of this information is relevant. I am going to create a new blog called, "The Logic of Evolution", I invite you to read it, but it will take a lot more work to understand it. I will provide simple equivalent arguments,to show I have understood logical notation, to the point where even children would understand why I am correct. I invite you to read it with a PROMISE I give you that my logic will only be based on the sound notations of logic I have learnt over the years. I will not even make an argument, I will simply DEDUCE FROM existing arguments. I think that is the problem, you don't seem to realize that logic is like a mathematical sum. Yes, you could dispute that 2 add 2 is 4, but what is the point? Once the sum is figured out, there is nothing else to be said.

      In the same way, my blogs are "sums", yes - you can dispute that you will fall to the ground if you want to dispute gravity, if I jump from a cliff, but that will not change that an implication of gravity is that you will fall, on earth. So as you can see, I don't say my arguments are indisputable because of my opinions, but because of what I have taken time to study and figure out through clever thinking. If you are too lazy to understand why logic can make certain implications, is this really my fault? Is it my fault if you go off in many tangents talking about my hate for science? What has that got to do with the sums I figured out?

      If I am wrong, then everything about logical notation I learnt, is also wrong, and there are no such thing as syllogisms, modus ponens, tollens, reductio ad absurdum, the excluded middle, identity, none-contradiction, tautology, Truisms, formal/informal fallacies, epithets, burden of proof, inductive and deductive reasoning, exclusive evidence, etc....I have discussed some of these subjects in my previous blogs. SOME of them. Can you handwave away all of this knowledge simply because I am not evolutionist? Have I been incorrect in everything I have stated even when I made sure it matched the correct teaching on the subject?

      It is unfair to me.