Abiogenesis is evolution

[Monk Of Reason]

You still don't understand the difference between evolution and biological evolution? The first expression just consists of one word: Evolution. As in going from simple to complex but not yet being complex enough to have the processes required to call the assembly alive. The second expression consists of two words: Biological evolution. That is the evolution that takes place with assemblies having the processes required to be alive.

You can claim that all you want. But you have yet to provide evidence or an argument as to why it should be considered this way. The fact there is no line between life and non-life in the early stages of this evolution is a clear indication that there is no line between the end of what you called non-biological evolution and evolution. They are, in fact, the same process. You have a need, however, to call it different processes because of our own arbitrary understanding of life and non-life. This however poses a fundamental problem for those that are trying to classify and categorize such events. Biological evolution is simply a form of evolution. We use it in the modern term to indicate the changes in alleles in populations. However the further back you go the more difficult this is to categorize.

Abiogensis is the process that started evolution and continues with evolution. There has been no real or meaningful difference between the evolution of the molecules during its long transition from non-life to life than there is in its current form. Just as we are still the same beings that were once the same with chimpanzee's. You have yet to address the issues and over simplifying it to meet your needs does nothing for the conversation.

 

[ArtieE]

Biological evolution is simply a form of evolution.

Correct. It's the form of evolution that happens to living organisms.

Abiogensis is the process that started evolution and continues with evolution.

Abiogenesis is the evolution from non-life to life. Biological evolution started with life and describes how life evolves. There's a reason there are different words for them you know.

There has been no real or meaningful difference between the evolution of the molecules during its long transition from non-life to life than there is in its current form.

I think the difference between non-living and living is pretty real and meaningful.

Just as we are still the same beings that were once the same with chimpanzee's. You have yet to address the issues and over simplifying it to meet your needs does nothing for the conversation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Correct. It's the form of evolution that happens to living organisms

And there is no meaingful line between life and non life for the purposes of this evolution.

. Abiogenesis is the evolution from non-life to life. Biological evolution started with life and describes how life evolves. There's a reason there are different words for them you know.

I don't think you know as much as you think you know
There are no differences in the terms between the two depending on which scientific establishmetn that you talk to. There is no scientific consensus that abiogensis is non-biological evolution. I have already gone into detail as to why and you havent' ever actually addressed what I stated.

I think the difference between non-living and living is pretty real and meaningful.

Currently yes. 4.1 billion years ago no.

 

[ArtieE]

There are no differences in the terms between the two depending on which scientific establishmetn that you talk to. There is no scientific consensus that abiogensis is non-biological evolution. I have already gone into detail as to why and you havent' ever actually addressed what I stated.

I just don't see your point.

"Biological evolution by Regina Bailey Biology Expert

What Is Evolution?
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

In order for an event to be considered an instance of evolution, changes have to occur on the genetic level of a population and be passed on from one generation to the next."
Biological Evolution


Abiogenesis & Evolution

It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution

Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two — especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists."
Abiogenesis & Evolution - Biology Myths

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I just don't see your point.

"Biological evolution by Regina Bailey Biology Expert

What Is Evolution?
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

In order for an event to be considered an instance of evolution, changes have to occur on the genetic level of a population and be passed on from one generation to the next."
Biological Evolution

]
Nothing within this bit here counters my point

Abiogenesis & Evolution

It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution

Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two — especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists."
Abiogenesis & Evolution - Biology Myths

The bold is the joint of the debate. The concept of the theory of evolution does require there to be life but the concept of abiogensis cannot be simply removed. It is joined and overlapped. They are the same processes with the same materials. It is still under current debate to what extent abiogensis is to be considered biological evolution and at what point it is required to separate the two at all. Thus when talking about the earliest of life there are often exceptions to our current definitions to certain words. Biological evolution and life being two of the most important that must make exceptions for any descriptive relevance and meaning.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now, with more and more discoveries that the fundamental organic components are abundant in space, it would suggest that astrobiology will be a big part of abiogenesis. So the question is then, should evolution cover astrobiology as well?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Now, with more and more discoveries that the fundamental organic components are abundant in space, it would suggest that astrobiology will be a big part of abiogenesis. So the question is then, should evolution cover astrobiology as well?

Astrobiology already includes evolution. We're very close to a Universal understanding of existence. It's very exciting.

 

[ArtieE]

]The bold is the joint of the debate. The concept of the theory of evolution does require there to be life but the concept of abiogensis cannot be simply removed. It is joined and overlapped. They are the same processes with the same materials. It is still under current debate to what extent abiogensis is to be considered biological evolution and at what point it is required to separate the two at all.

So if we don't separate the two what then with all the religious people who claim there was no abiogenesis and god(s) or aliens created first life or those who believe in panspermia?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So if we don't separate the two what then with all the religious people who claim there was no abiogenesis and god(s) or aliens created first life or those who believe in panspermia?

Transpermia would still involve abiogensis just elsewhere in the universe. But we can have abiogensis be a part of evolution but the entirety of the theory does not hinge on abiogensis. Just as physics doesn't hinge on the big bang but the big bang is obviously part of the physics model of the universe. Also the main reason why there has been scholarly debate on if it should be included or not has little to do with defending attacks against evolution by creationists. It has everything to do with our archaic definitions of the words that we use and if we need to use different terminology or change our current terminology.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Transpermia requires abiogenesis elsewhere, as Monk mentioned. But I don't think abiogensis to be an isolated event. Given the size of the cosmos, there would have to be hundreds or thousands of abiogenetic events, hence Panspermia. Seems we are only concerned with abiogenesis as it pertains to us, at the moment.

 

[Ouroboros]

Astrobiology already includes evolution.

Sure, but Evolution (as in biological evolution) doesn't include astrobiology, or does it? If not, should it? Should a student in biological anthropology have to study biochemistry and astrobiology? Or even touch on the topic?

We're very close to a Universal understanding of existence. It's very exciting.

I love all these things they're finding right now. We're living in a crazy, but exciting time.

 

[shawn001]

Sure, but Evolution (as in biological evolution) doesn't include astrobiology, or does it? If not, should it? Should a student in biological anthropology have to study biochemistry and astrobiology? Or even touch on the topic?


I love all these things they're finding right now. We're living in a crazy, but exciting time.

They should learn nucleosynthesis and where carbon comes from in the first place since were carbon based life forms for one, that we are made from star dust.

The record on Earth so far shows

"Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on Earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years. Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old. Whenever creationists point to sediments where these relationships appear to be altered or even reversed, scientists have clearly demonstrated that this reversal has resulted from the folding of geological strata over or under others. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earth's sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Bunyip]

There is no line between life and non-life.

I'm sorry, I appear to be unable to follow your point. Yes of course therr is a line between abiogenesis and evolution - one that has been pointed out to you many times.

Therefore there is no "first" species. If there was a first species then that would indicate that there was a line. You cannot claim both while being intelectually honest.

Again, I apologise - your point eludes me. Yes there is a 'line', it is an arbitrary distinction. And of course there are first species.

As above. That there is a first life from or first human when there clearly was not by your own statements.

Again, sorry - you've lost me.

The fact there is no clear distinction and you have yet to make sense. Your claims seem much like that of a creationist to me. Do you recognize this?

Nope, all I see is that for some reason you can not see what is to me a very simple and clear distinction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm sorry, I appear to be unable to follow your point. Yes of course therr is a line between abiogenesis and evolution - one that has been pointed out to you many times.

No. Ignorantly people have assumed the line and attempted to point it out where I have rebutted as to why they were wrong about that. Simply saying "the point in time in which it was life" is nonsensical when every evolutionary scientist in the world worth their salt will tell you there is absolutely no line between life and non-life during the shift. If you want to make that line a few billion years then you may. But what do you call that transitional period during those 2-3 billion years.

Again, I apologise - your point eludes me. Yes there is a 'line', it is an arbitrary distinction. And of course there are first species.

Again. No. There is not a specific line between life and non-life. Just as there is no specific line between homo erectus and homo Sapiens. If you think there are then you need to go back and read some more no the subject. The fossils that we use and the species that we describe are best used as bookmarks upon a long book of evolution where each page is slightly different than the next. There is no break into chapters but an obviously change over long periods of time.

Similarly there was no "first" species. There was a transition from non-life to life and during the process it is agreed upon unanimously that there is no single species that was first.

Again, sorry - you've lost me.Nope, all I see is that for some reason you can not see what is to me a very simple and clear distinction.

I don't know what to tell you other than to go educate yourself on the subject. I understand that this is still a debate in science about how inclusive abiogensis should be to general biological evolution but very few of the points made (none of yours btw) have actually touched on the arguments used in science during this debate for the separation of abiogensis and biological evolution.

 

[Bunyip]

No. Ignorantly people have assumed the line and attempted to point it out where I have rebutted as to why they were wrong about that. Simply saying "the point in time in which it was life" is nonsensical when every evolutionary scientist in the world worth their salt will tell you there is absolutely no line between life and non-life during the shift. If you want to make that line a few billion years then you may. But what do you call that transitional period during those 2-3 billion years.

There is no specific individual - no exact point in time. Evolution is a continuum, so is the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. It is still a useful distinction. The 'line' is indeed arbitrary - but nevertheless useful.

Again. No. There is not a specific line between life and non-life. Just as there is no specific line between homo erectus and homo Sapiens. If you think there are then you need to go back and read some more no the subject. The fossils that we use and the species that we describe are best used as bookmarks upon a long book of evolution where each page is slightly different than the next. There is no break into chapters but an obviously change over long periods of time.

Similarly there was no "first" species. There was a transition from non-life to life and during the process it is agreed upon unanimously that there is no single species that was first.



I don't know what to tell you other than to go educate yourself on the subject. I understand that this is still a debate in science about how inclusive abiogensis should be to general biological evolution but very few of the points made (none of yours btw) have actually touched on the arguments used in science during this debate for the separation of abiogensis and biological evolution.

It is an arbitrary distinction, along a continuum - I 'm not sure what is confusing you about that. FYI the 'line' used in biology is generally the presence of dna. So biologists often classify the first life form according to the first organisms - the first to have dna.

There is of course a grey area between abiogenesis and evolution, but that does not invalidate the distinction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is no specific individual - no exact point in time. Evolution is a continuum, so is the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. It is still a useful distinction. The 'line' is indeed arbitrary - but nevertheless useful.

There is no line that has been drawn as of yet. We have the earliest known fossils and those are great examples of early life but there is still no scientifically established line, real or arbitrary, between the point in time where we first had life from non-life.

It is an arbitrary distinction, along a continuum - I 'm not sure what is confusing you about that. FYI the 'line' used in biology is generally the presence of dna. So biologists often classify the first life form according to the first organisms - the first to have dna.

There is of course a grey area between abiogenesis and evolution, but that does not invalidate the distinction.

It isn't confusing. In fact it is incredibly simple. You are missing the mark and it isn't confusing me.

It does invalidate the distinction in many cases. Perhaps I shall play devil's advocate against myself.
One side of the argument states that abiogensis should be considered an early form of evolution or perhaps a subsection or mechanisms of biolgocial evolution as it is obviously tied into it. This does in no way affect the rest of the theory.

The opposing side feels that abiogensiis, while linked and in all aspects almost identification to the rest of the biological evolutionary process, should be considered separate as biological evolution requires life to have already existed for there to be change. In order to maintain the current meaning of several terms used in evolution (including evolution itself) they advocate the separation of the two as study may be linked but different.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no line that has been drawn as of yet. We have the earliest known fossils and those are great examples of early life but there is still no scientifically established line, real or arbitrary, between the point in time where we first had life from non-life.

It isn't confusing. In fact it is incredibly simple. You are missing the mark and it isn't confusing me.

It does invalidate the distinction in many cases. Perhaps I shall play devil's advocate against myself.
One side of the argument states that abiogensis should be considered an early form of evolution or perhaps a subsection or mechanisms of biolgocial evolution as it is obviously tied into it. This does in no way affect the rest of the theory.

The opposing side feels that abiogensiis, while linked and in all aspects almost identification to the rest of the biological evolutionary process, should be considered separate as biological evolution requires life to have already existed for there to be change. In order to maintain the current meaning of several terms used in evolution (including evolution itself) they advocate the separation of the two as study may be linked but different.

Sure. I'm not taking issue with that. There is no exact point where night becomes day, or hot becomes cold - what is the problem?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sure. I'm not taking issue with that. There is no exact point where night becomes day, or hot becomes cold - what is the problem?

Do you absorb both sides of the argument? Yes or no? If you are stubbornly arguing your point I get that. But do you not understand the argument of the opposing side as to why it should be included? I find on the internet and even in published books a lot of trash about abiogensis as it seems a ton of misinformation has been spread around. One of the worst trash being spewed around is that abiogensis and evolution have nothing to do with each other. While it is the opinion of some of the evolutionary biologists and researchers that they should be kept separate they are still inseparably linked. And it is far from "established" by science if it is a process of biological evolution or not.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you absorb both sides of the argument? Yes or no? If you are stubbornly arguing your point I get that. But do you not understand the argument of the opposing side as to why it should be included? I find on the internet and even in published books a lot of trash about abiogensis as it seems a ton of misinformation has been spread around. One of the worst trash being spewed around is that abiogensis and evolution have nothing to do with each other. While it is the opinion of some of the evolutionary biologists and researchers that they should be kept separate they are still inseparably linked. And it is far from "established" by science if it is a process of biological evolution or not.

No. It is difinitively not a process of biological evolution. 'Biological' evolution begins with DNA.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No. It is difinitively not a process of biological evolution. 'Biological' evolution begins with DNA.

This explains a lot to me. Thank you for answering the question. I see no reason to further debate you until you learn more on the subject. Good day to you sir and see you in other parts of the forum.