Theoretical origin of life: more ruminations (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, December 17, 2015, 00:48 (3264 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment (re OOL): Darwin used this as a crutch, and its been used ever since.
> 
> dhw: No he didn't, and you know he didn't.
> 
> DAVID: You are misinterpreting me. I only brought Hunter into the picture to make the point, as he does, Darwin starts after OOL. I think that is a deliberate act on Darwin's part, because to me, any rational person has to recognize that the mechanism to evolve is part and parcel of original life, or then why did evolution occur at all, if original life did not contain the ability and had to learn how to evolve after arrival? And if it had to learn, how did that happen?
> 
> Of course the mechanism had to be part and parcel of original life. But the fact that Darwin did not offer a solution to the mystery of the origin of life and the mechanism (and in your view and mine was wrong about random mutations and gradualism) does not make one iota of difference to the theory that all forms of life descended from earlier forms. Atheistic neo-Darwinists are just as guilty as creationist theists of distorting his theory, since all of them try to conflate evolution with abiogenesis in order to suit their agenda. But we have had this discussion before, and I thought you had agreed to avoid such blatant misrepresentation. Back we go: 
> DARWIN: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” 
> Does this not satisfy you that Darwin's theory does not need the crutch of abiogenesis?