• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenesis is evolution

dust1n

Zindīq
EvolutionObviously self-replicating, data-storing molecules can't go through any biological evolution because they aren't alive in the first place.

  1. Simple organic molecules were formed.
    Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.
    nucleotide.gif


  2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
    All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.
    rna_chain.gif


    Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an "RNA world" in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.
    Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more "offspring." These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved.



  3. Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
    The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages: the products of the genetic material could be kept close by and the internal environment of this proto-cell could be different than the external environment. Cell membranes must have been so advantageous that these encased replicators quickly out-competed "naked" replicators. This breakthrough would have given rise to an organism much like a modern bacterium.


    earlycells.gif

    dot_clear.gif

    Cell membranes enclose the genetic material.
  4. Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
    Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs (as described in Step 2 above). But everything changed when some cell or group of cells evolved to use different types of molecules for different functions: DNA (which is more stable than RNA) became the genetic material, proteins (which are often more efficient promoters of chemical reactions than RNA) became responsible for basic metabolic reactions in the cell, and RNA was demoted to the role of messenger, carrying information from the DNA to protein-building centers in the cell. Cells incorporating these innovations would have easily out-competed "old-fashioned" cells with RNA-based metabolisms, hailing the end of the RNA world.
    dnarnaprotein.gif



    Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
At the point that you shift from identically self-replicating to self-replicating with variation.
Is something identically self-replicating not-alive and something self-replicating with variation alive? Has everything self-replicating with variation been officially declared to be alive?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
It runs contrary to the claim: "self-replicating, data-storing molecules can't go through any biological evolution because they aren't alive in the first place."
:D Of course it doesn't. This describes the origin of life and biological evolution isn't even mentioned yet. Only evolution. The headline on your link says "How did life originate?"

This is how simple I can put it:
Biological evolution is the evolution of life, not the evolution to life. Can you see the difference?
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Is something identically self-replicating not-alive and something self-replicating with variation alive? Has everything self-replicating with variation been officially declared to be alive?
You did not ask for live vs. not alive (or I misunderstood). That distinction is meaningless and a waste of time. You will never find an on/off switch, but rather a gradual grading of one into the other with multiple lines fusing together. I was addressing the line (if you will) between aboigensis and evolution as processes.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
:D Of course it doesn't. This describes the origin of life and biological evolution isn't even mentioned yet. Only evolution. The headline on your link says "How did life originate?"

What is biological evolution in terms of how it is different from evolution?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
What is biological evolution in terms of how it is different from evolution?
Biological evolution is the evolution of life specifically. Not to life. Of life. Evolution can be the evolution of anything. Such as going from simple to more complex structures and ending up with so complex structures that they have properties and processes we have defined as making them "living".
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
You did not ask for live vs. not alive (or I misunderstood). That distinction is meaningless and a waste of time. You will never find an on/off switch, but rather a gradual grading of one into the other with multiple lines fusing together.
Let me explain it this way. First you have an atom. Then you have a molecule. Keep on making more and more complex structures until you have a structure that has the minimal amount of processes and properties required by us to call it alive. That's the start of life.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
This seems wholly arbitrary. The same tenets that apply to "biological evolution" also apply to self-replicating molecules which are not considered "life."
Explain in more detail.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. Rationalwiki

"Creationists consequently confuse the biological and non-biological meanings of the word "evolution" and they claim that the Theory of Evolution includes the origin of the universe and the origin of life. The biological theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and others has nothing to say about either the origin of the universe or the origin of life on Earth" Rationalwiki
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Explain in more detail.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. Rationalwiki

Are you asking me to explain in more detail or telling me that you are doing so?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Let me explain it this way. First you have an atom. Then you have a molecule. Keep on making more and more complex structures until you have a structure that has the minimal amount of processes and properties required by us to call it alive. That's the start of life.
Would you tell us what the, "minimal amount of processes and properties required by us to call it alive," are? I advance the idea that it is the ability to evolve, and that is the ability to reproduce with variation.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Would you tell us what the, "minimal amount of processes and properties required by us to call it alive," are?
"Today we might think of life as a process. A process that involves cellular systems in a series of activities. By cellular systems we mean ones which have a definable inside, separated somehow, from an equally definable, outside. Generally we define the life giving activities of these systems as 1)a tendency to trap energy (either directly as radient energy or indirectly as matter, or both) within the system. This results in a build up of greater complexity inside the cells. 2) A further tendency to convert the materials brought into the system into new forms which are more useful to the system and to excrete unwanted products, both those brought into the system and those resulting from internal activity. 3) Finally, and most importantly in some ways, to reproduce themselves. All the things that science currently accepts as living exist as either single cells, or as a collection of cells working together (unicellular life or multicellular life). What is Life?? What is Alive??
I advance the idea that it is the ability to evolve, and that is the ability to reproduce with variation.
Would a cell that just makes exact copies of itself be alive?
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
At the point that you shift from identically self-replicating to self-replicating with variation.
This is still far prior to "life". It could have been from the inception as the same processes that allow for genetic variation of "living" organisms is the same as the non-living strands replicating themselves.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
This is still far prior to "life". It could have been from the inception as the same processes that allow for genetic variation of "living" organisms is the same as the non-living strands replicating themselves.
As we learn more we will slice finer and define better but at our current level of knowledge I feel that my division is the best "change of grade" that can come up with.
 
Top