tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-42745189450226935002008-07-14T02:08:00.001-05:002008-07-14T02:13:39.501-05:00<div>Contrary to what some evolutionists have said, abiogenesis and evolution actually <em>are</em> the same thing.</div><br /><br /><div>Or at least, evolution is key to explaining how simple self replicating systems eventually became living cells. Let me explain how: Evolution is a change in the gene pool over time. Anything with a genetic medium, which reproduces, and of course experiences changes in that genetic medium, evolves. Nearly every hypothesis about the origin of life begins with something which replicates itself (Dawkins, 1976). This replicator reproduces itself into a population, and suble changes sneak in. Changes which allow the replicator to reproduce more quickly, for instnce, may make it more common. What I have just described (replication, mutation, natural selection) is evolution. So while technically chemistry may have to supply the answers to how the replicator originated, the transition from replicating RNA strand/peptide to primitive cell is within the theory of evolution. Plenty of research exists in this area:</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html" target="_blank">http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html</a></div><br /><br /><div><a href="http://www.godriddance.com/Answering_the_Big_Questions.php" target="_blank">http://www.godriddance.com/Answering_the_Big_Questions.php</a></div><br /><div> </div><br /><br />One more thing: I did not think about this until Matzke mentioned it, but the fact that biological molecules form so easily in early earth simulating conditions is a good indication that the notion of life coming from inanimate matter is on the right path.AIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.com