thehumblethinker

At first I thought 'meh - this is no different from scientists creating genetically modified tomatoes', but in fact it does seem like they created a new lifeform by splicing chemicals rather than making tweaks to an existing one. I suppose the extreme simplicity of viruses is what makes this possible. It's a good demonstration of how at the ultra-simple level, the difference between life and chemical compounds is a relatively short hop. And of course once you have a self-replicating organism you can have evolution and all the complexity that ultimately arises from that.

It's totally relevant when considering whether abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution. It isn't. Wishful thinking doesnt come into it.

I will take Darwinism here as meaning 'the theory of evolution' rather than 'anything Darwin came out with'. The theory of evolution explains how complex life evolved from simpler life. It's understandable that evolutionary scientists would extrapolate back to what the initial, most simple form of life might have consisted of. However, regardless of whether that simplest form of life was conjured into existence by a supernatural event, or whether it came about due to a chemical reaction, it does not have any bearing on the theory of evolution, which provides a convincing explaination backed up by evidence of how, once you have life, that life may evolve into more complex forms. So although Darwin may have speculated about abiogenisis that doesnt make it part of the theory of evolution. In the same way, Richard Dawkins, while being a supporter of the theory of evolution, also has a bee in his bonnet about GW Bush. And he makes statements on the subject. However, this doesnt mean that not liking GW Bush is part of the theory of evolution.