Abiogenesis is evolution

[gnostic]

I'd like to be an "anti-gravitationist" though.

I will knight you, Sir anti-gravitationist. Now go and float away!

 

[Jared Jammer]

Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis are not synonymous, however, they are closely related. If evolution represents the branches of the tree of life, then abiogenesis is the roots and the trunk.

Two crucial things to keep in mind:

1. The origin of life is the origin of any evolutionary process. Without that process, there is no descent with modification.

2. The answer to the origin of life is the answer to the question of Darwin vs. Design. Remember: when evolutionists argue for their (ahem) "theory," they're arguing for an ateleological, design-free, chance-based series of processes. This presupposes that life is a design-free phenomenon, which is a matter of the origin of life, not of evolution.

We can't say that any aspect of life is design-free while the question of the origin of life remains unsolved. To say otherwise, as I often see, is simply incoherent.

 

[Sunstone]

We can't say that any aspect of life is design-free while the question of the origin of life remains unsolved. To say otherwise, as I often see, is simply incoherent.

It's conceivable that some deity created life and then left it to diversify according to natural laws, rather than according to some design.

 

[philbo]

I regard it as creationist mambo-jumbo because no-one, despite the strong evidence, is a "gravitationist."

+1

I don't regard myself as an "evolutionist" - evolution is something that happened (& still happens), but sticking an -ist on the end implies that someone in some way defines themself by this as a belief, which is kind of bollocks.

Abiogenesis is a necessary precursor to evolution, the first step on the escalator of life, if you like; however, the mechanism of abiogenesis (whatever it may have been) is completely independent of evolution as it has occurred over the aeons. Not knowing how that first step was taken in no way invalidates the evidence for what we can see has happened since.

 

[Yerda]

Selection was probably occuring long before anything happened to be alive. If we take the RNA world model as our accepted route from non-life to life (for arguments' sake) we would have say that RNA was evolving (in the modification with descent sense) before it led to life. Evolution was possibly an important part of abiogenesis. To discount this, to me, is just silly.

 

[Yerda]

When an article is talking about the evolutionary origins like in the one above, they're talking about a different view of the term "evolution". The term evolution is also used in astrophysics (evolution of the universe, stars, or what-have-you), and also in engineering (like "evolution of cars" or "evolution of cell phones"). The abiogenesis evolution and biological evolution are different.

It's definitely true that however life started it did, and continues to, evolve. But it's pretty much a given that what we think of as biological evolution is not limited to living systems. All we need are replicators and modification with descent (what Darwin described) is guaranteed by chemistry.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's definitely true that however life started it did, and continues to, evolve. But it's pretty much a given that what we think of as biological evolution is not limited to living systems. All we need are replicators and modification with descent (what Darwin described) is guaranteed by chemistry.

Sure.

But most of the time when someone is discussing evolution he or she is really talking about biological evolution of life, specifically.

 

[ScottySatan]

But they aren't arguing it isn't evolution, they're arguing that evolution exists independently of how life started, be it abiogenesis, some manner of initial creation, panspermia or whatever the root cause happens to be.

The idea is to get people to recognize that evolution is a fact, one that is compatible with nigh-every faith. In this context, abiogenesis is simply not important. Evolution is a mechanism, independent from any origin of life theory.

But all of the hypotheses of abiogenesis are all about natural selection, and are much more dependent on natural selection than evolution of complex organisms.

 

[ScottySatan]

Also, notice that it's published on NCBI, which is a website dealing with medicine and biology. Evolution and abiogenesis (and biogenesis in general, not just abiogenesis) falls under biology, genetic, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, math (surprising enough), and many other sciences. To exclude abiogenesis (as opposed to other biogenesis theories) to only be the one belonging to evolution, and evolution being completely dependent on its explanation, that's what the problem is about.

Is abiogenesis evolution? Yes and no (both answers at the same time).

When an article is talking about the evolutionary origins like in the one above, they're talking about a different view of the term "evolution". The term evolution is also used in astrophysics (evolution of the universe, stars, or what-have-you), and also in engineering (like "evolution of cars" or "evolution of cell phones"). The abiogenesis evolution and biological evolution are different. Biological evolution deals with how DNA, genes, nucleotides, etc can mutate and be selected for or against. Abiogenesis deals with how DNA, genes, nucleotides can come into existence, i.e. a form of biochemical evolution.

Let me say this, I took some classes where we studied evolution (and did labs and some small amount of research, nothing big, but enough to really convince me of its validity), but not a single time, not one chapter, nothing was dealing with abiogenesis. We studied genes, different types of selective pressure and more, even did some math (who would think that the quadratic formula would show up there), but we never had anything about abiogenesis or biogenesis in general. All the things we studied stood on their own merits. Abiogenesis isn't an issue for the other things to be true, even if it partially fall under the same umbrella of study.

Take that old experiment that is mentioned at times, Miller-Urey, which was to show how some components of life can occur naturally. Miller was a chemist. Urey was a physical chemist. It was based on hypothesis by Oparin, biochemist, and Haldane, biologist. The thing is, "evolution" isn't by itself a field of science the same way as biology, mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. It falls mostly under biology, biochemistry, genetics, but also falls under medicine, computer science, mathematics, and more. Abiogenesis falls mostly under biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, and not as much under the other fields (like computer science).

Again, the key is that abiogenesis happened by natural selection. Let me rephrase that...Abiogenesis was rewarded by natural selection. The first thing that did it, had offspring (or chemical products at this point) that could do it again. Those that could not, didn't. Those things that could, are our ancestors.

 

[Ouroboros]

Again, the key is that abiogenesis happened by natural selection.

Sure. I agree.

Let me rephrase that...Abiogenesis was rewarded by natural selection. The first thing that did it, had offspring (or chemical products at this point) that could do it again. Those that could not, didn't. Those things that could, are our ancestors.

Sure. That's true too.

It was however a chemical evolution, not biological evolution. Just like galaxies, stars, star systems, etc are the result of physical/astronomical evolutions. All things tie together. Everything is within the natural order of things, so in the large scale, everything is changing and evolving. But when we usually talk about biological evolution, we're not talking about the evolution of let's say iron elements which are created in stars. The evolution of iron is not needed to understand or even know how it came to be or even know if it could come to be to understand and know that biological evolution holds true on its own.

The evolution of car models are independent of the evolution of iron mining industry. Sure there are some overlap and some relationships, but in general, they're in somewhat different fields. The chemical evolution of non-life matter into organic life is important and interesting, but the evolution of species (after abiogenesis) is a theory on its own.

The answer really is yes and no. In the narrow sense of biological evolution, abiogenesis is not part of it. In a more wide sense of evolution, yes, abiogenesis is a part.

Think of it this way, the two opposing ideas are: biogenesis (God created life) and abiogenesis (life came from nature). Either one can work with biological evolution. Neither one will really change anything that we know about biological evolution except make us understand it better and why it works the way it does. If God is behind life, then theistic evolution is more likely. If nature is behind life, then natural evolution is more likely. In either case, biological evolution is there.

Let me put it another way, do you know who invented the first computer? If you don't, can a computer still work even if you don't know? What about defining what a computer is, and then we might discover that there are multiple answers (Pascal, Babbage, Zuse, Turing, Newmann, ...), and regardless of which one you consider to be the inventor of computers, the computers still do their jobs.

 

[ScottySatan]

Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis are not synonymous, however, they are closely related. If evolution represents the branches of the tree of life, then abiogenesis is the roots and the trunk.

Two crucial things to keep in mind:

1. The origin of life is the origin of any evolutionary process. Without that process, there is no descent with modification.

2. The answer to the origin of life is the answer to the question of Darwin vs. Design. Remember: when evolutionists argue for their (ahem) "theory," they're arguing for an ateleological, design-free, chance-based series of processes. This presupposes that life is a design-free phenomenon, which is a matter of the origin of life, not of evolution.

We can't say that any aspect of life is design-free while the question of the origin of life remains unsolved. To say otherwise, as I often see, is simply incoherent.

Sounds good to me. Let me clarify with something that wouldn't work as a headline.

Natural selection came into play the first time and every time a molecule replicated itself or modified another molecule, regardless of whether those molecules ended up being precursors of life or not, but including the ones that did.

Cancer comes from natural selection on "one renegade cell". Cancer science isn't evolutionary science, yet cancer researchers agree that natural selection selects for more cancerous cells, and is probably an essential part of the process of that renegade cell growing into a tumor.

The main idea is to address the criticism. Critics of evolution frequently ask what happened before the first cell, before the first thing with replicative DNA, and we give them a really bad answer. "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis". Don't tell me we don't say it, I can prove it. I don't want to name names. That's not true, and we have a whole butt-load of material about that very thing. Don't sweep it under the rug, bring it out. Otherwise, these people are going to think they "won" and then vote against research funding.

 

[Valjean]

Two crucial things to keep in mind:

1. The origin of life is the origin of any evolutionary process. Without that process, there is no descent with modification.

The origin is chemistry. There are many natural chemical processes that produce things with 'lifelike' characteristics. Once these structures begin replicating, then there is room to modify.

2. The answer to the origin of life is the answer to the question of Darwin vs. Design. Remember: when evolutionists argue for their (ahem) "theory," they're arguing for an ateleological, design-free, chance-based series of processes. This presupposes that life is a design-free phenomenon, which is a matter of the origin of life, not of evolution.

Life may begin by chance, but once it begins reproducing, adapting and competing the changes are selected.

We can't say that any aspect of life is design-free while the question of the origin of life remains unsolved. To say otherwise, as I often see, is simply incoherent.

Origins is an active field of study, but an understanding of this process does not diminish our much better understanding of the mechanisms of subsequent change.

Again, the key is that abiogenesis happened by natural selection. Let me rephrase that...Abiogenesis was rewarded by natural selection. The first thing that did it, had offspring (or chemical products at this point) that could do it again. Those that could not, didn't. Those things that could, are our ancestors.

Abiogenesis happened by basic chemistry. Natural selection occurred later, after Nature had something to work with.

 

[Yerda]

Abiogenesis happened by basic chemistry. Natural selection occurred later, after Nature had something to work with.

Natural selection must have been ongoing before there was anything we would call alive.

 

[ScottySatan]

Abiogenesis happened by basic chemistry. Natural selection occurred later, after Nature had something to work with.[/QUOTE]

Who ever said (besides you) that natural selection isn't effective on basic chemistry? Why wouldn't it be?

I can see it now...

The second theory of evolution by natural selection: Natural selection doesn't work on molecules. Only big conglomerates of molecules. because....?

 

[Ouroboros]

The main idea is to address the criticism. Critics of evolution frequently ask what happened before the first cell, before the first thing with replicative DNA, and we give them a really bad answer. "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis". Don't tell me we don't say it, I can prove it. I don't want to name names. That's not true, and we have a whole butt-load of material about that very thing. Don't sweep it under the rug, bring it out. Otherwise, these people are going to think they "won" and then vote against research funding.

Sure. I can agree on that. As long as it's okay to explain the difference between the concepts of evolution to the creationist.

Years ago, when Kent Hovind was active, he argued that since we can't prove Big Bang, galaxies, yada yada, abiogenesis, and that humans came from rocks, therefore evolution is wrong. There's a lot of residual reaction to how he argued his anti-evolution material. We still see some of his arguments floating around, and even Gish (Kent was a prime example of Gish-gallop). We really don't need to explain abiogenesis to know that evolution is true. We really don't. I took several classes in the topics, looked at the evidence, and not a single chapter talked about chemical evolution, simply because it's so different. It's like the difference between chemistry and physics. They do overlap, but they're separate domains.

 

[Valjean]

Natural selection is a mechanism by which life adapts to changing conditions or ramifies into unexploited niches.
How would this mechanism be operational before there was any life to work with?

 

[Ouroboros]

Who ever said (besides you) that natural selection isn't effective on basic chemistry? Why wouldn't it be?

Agree. It probably does.

Also, today, we have more things to add to the mix, like epigenetics. There's more and more evidence that epigenetics might be part of the evolutionary process. For instance, a mother's diet can change the path for future generations. It's not just the genetic code making us, but what we eat, how we live, what we do, and the same for what our parents ate, lived, and did. Not saying that a guy working out will have kids with bigger muscles, that doesn't work. But a mother or father not having the right nutrition and having kids can affect the baby, and the baby's future kids as well.

 

[Yerda]

Natural selection is a mechanism by which life adapts to changing conditions or ramifies into unexploited niches.
How would this mechanism be operational before there was any life to work with?

Selection works perfectly well in RNA molecules. They aren't alive but they can catalyse their own replication from free nucleotides. In different environments different strains will come to dominate and in changing environments the dominant strains will change.

 

[Sapiens]

Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis are not synonymous, however, they are closely related. If evolution represents the branches of the tree of life, then abiogenesis is the roots and the trunk.

Two crucial things to keep in mind:

1. The origin of life is the origin of any evolutionary process. Without that process, there is no descent with modification.

2. The answer to the origin of life is the answer to the question of Darwin vs. Design. Remember: when evolutionists argue for their (ahem) "theory," they're arguing for an ateleological, design-free, chance-based series of processes. This presupposes that life is a design-free phenomenon, which is a matter of the origin of life, not of evolution.

As per usual, begging the loaded question with false dichotomy. You'll have to do better than that.

We can't say that any aspect of life is design-free while the question of the origin of life remains unsolved. To say otherwise, as I often see, is simply incoherent.

Of course we can. I rather doubt that there will ever be a clear and succinct finding when it comes to abiogenesis, yet there already is in place (save a few like you, caught up in your own incoherency) a clear and succinct modern synthesis that no bio-scientist I know questions, and I know a whole passel of 'em.

 

[ScottySatan]

Natural selection is a mechanism by which life adapts to changing conditions or ramifies into unexploited niches.
How would this mechanism be operational before there was any life to work with?

There's no solid/universal definition of what life is. Fortunately, natural selection applies to all that we've thought of so far. I think it's easiest to go backwards. Do you agree that natural selection works on eukaryotic single celled organisms like yeast and amoebas? Do you think it does for bacteria? Do you think it does for viruses? Well viruses evolve the ability to penetrate host defences. Evolution is well known in viruses. So if you said no, I can argue that.

How about virioids? A virioid is a virus that's only a ring of nucleotide that infects a cell. The nucleotide sequence is subject to change by natural selection. Yet it's only a molecule.

virioids are made of RNA. RNA encodes genetic information but also catalyses chemical reactions as an enzyme. The most famous catalytic RNAs are involved in genetic replication in modern cells (possibly a remnant of an all RNA world). One prominent idea for the first life is that it was an RNA enzyme. It brought together individual RNA nucleotides, stitching them together much like a RNA polymerase, making a copy of itself, which folded into another RNA enzyme that could do the same. The RNA enzyme , aka ribozyme, had an error rate in its replication process that introduced mutations that would occasionally make it better at replicating.

Where did the first RNA come from? similar but more primitive polymerizable organic molecules. where did those come from? One idea is clay. That part seems a little more dicey at the moment, but catalytic clay structures that can do this have been replicated in the lab.

See RNA World Hypothesis. There are other ideas, but they're similar.

Maybe all of those are wrong, but all of them for now require natural selection to happen immediately.