Talk:Law of biogenesis

You know that evolution isn't the same as abiogenesis. Evolution assumes life is already extant; it doesn't state that life comes from nonlife, because, quite specifically, it's not concerned with how that little part happened. The article should be changed to reflect that.-α m ε σ g (visit me at RationalWiki!) 23:35, 20 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionism, unless one believes that life had no beginning and stretches back to eternity. Abiogenesis is the starting step, and without it one would have to rely on a no beginning or a Creator.  If there is a Creator, then one no longer has true evolutionism.  Evolutionists are concerned enough about proving evolution through abiogenesis that there are lab technicians at work on it who get worldwide attention.  But it isn't just a "little" thing.  Life coming from non-life without any intelligent process is indescribably impossible.  And without evolution's beginning, there can be nothing that follows.  With a wave of your hand, you are dismissing a glaring shortcoming in evolution.  --Zephyr Axiom 15:32, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * You are absolutely right Zephyr Axiom, he obviously has no idea the massive emperical challenges abiogenesis poses to evolution as a credible theory. Calling it a "little part" is VERY misleading and without abiogenesis there is NO life, point blank. Even more misleading is that this article has nothing to do with abiogenesis, other than implying biogenesis is scientifically observed and abiogenesis isn't. Your comment should reflect that AmesG, it should be made on the abiogenesis page. --Tony Sommer 15:59, 21 October 2007 (EDT)