Abiogenesis is evolution

[McBell]

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.

Strawman much?

 

[McBell]

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.

{insert facepalm smilie here}

 

[ScottySatan]

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.

well, inheritance by epigenetics is still subject to selective pressure.


But you raise an important point. Evolution has occurred faster than evolution by natural selection by random mutation can possibly account for.

That's because 1) mutations aren't random, 2) we evolved the ability to make much larger scale genetic changes than the random point mutation.

 

[Bunyip]

well, inheritance by epigenetics is still subject to selective pressure.


But you raise an important point. Evolution has occurred faster than evolution by natural selection by random mutation can possibly account for.

That's because 1) mutations aren't random, 2) we evolved the ability to make much larger scale genetic changes than the random point mutation.

Well no, evolution does not occur faster than selection can count on. The average human for example has some 150,000 minor genetic variations (mutations) which over generations can express themselves in an almost infinite variety of changes.

 

[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?

This book has a great chapter on selection in RNAs.

The Basics of Selection: 9780412055317: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com

But at $99 I suggest you find a copy in a library if you can. That is a ridiculous price.

 

[Ouroboros]

well, inheritance by epigenetics is still subject to selective pressure.

Yes. That was my point.

But you raise an important point. Evolution has occurred faster than evolution by natural selection by random mutation can possibly account for.

That's because 1) mutations aren't random, 2) we evolved the ability to make much larger scale genetic changes than the random point mutation.

One reason why evolution is happening faster might be explained by something that's rarely talked about. Virus. I saw somewhere that a large portion of the DNA comes from virus, like ERVs, and not from hereditary genes.

'Foreign' Genes In Humans Come From Bacteria, Viruses And Fungi: Study

The reason why that speeds it up is that a virus and bacteria can evolve in separate paths, parallel to other organisms, and if zygotes or ova/sperm cells get infected, you can make larger jumps in single steps.

Also, jumping genes within a cell, where previous dormant (non-coding genes) could get active (if I understand it right). More than 90% of our genes aren't coding, i.e. they're not used to produce proteins. But if one or some of these get activated, well, then a turned off trait that we perhaps got from some ancestor millions of years ago, could come into use again.

--edit

The mitochondrial DNA is probably a successful infection in early history, if I remember right. Just a note.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree ScottySatan and Jaiket. To draw some kind of line between evolution/ diversification of molecules and evolution/ diversification of living systems does not make sense. Some may feel like it strengthens the argument for evolution to separate it from abiogenesis simply because a the exact way abiogenesis occurred is harder to demonstrate and may never be fully known. But support for the TOE is so strong already there is really no gain in saying abiogenesis is not directly related to evolution, and I think it undermines the evidence to say they are not related.

 

[Sapiens]

well, inheritance by epigenetics is still subject to selective pressure.


But you raise an important point. Evolution has occurred faster than evolution by natural selection by random mutation can possibly account for.

That's because 1) mutations aren't random, 2) we evolved the ability to make much larger scale genetic changes than the random point mutation.

Evolution has not occurred any faster than it is expected to. Just look at the speed of breeder selected traits when it comes to pigeons, dogs, roses and orchids.

Mutations are random ( Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed" ). Yes there are larger scale genetic changes too.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree ScottySatan and Jaiket. To draw some kind of line between evolution/ diversification of molecules and evolution/ diversification of living systems does not make sense. Some may feel like it strengthens the argument for evolution to separate it from abiogenesis simply because a the exact way abiogenesis occurred is harder to demonstrate and may never be fully known. But support for the TOE is so strong already there is really no gain in saying abiogenesis is not directly related to evolution, and I think it undermines the evidence to say they are not related.

They are related, just as physics and chemistry is related - but nevertheless distinct.
Abiogenesis does not strengthen or weaken the ToE, it is simply distinct from it.

To make an analogy - mechanical repairs and metallurgy are related. But your mechanic can fix your car without understanding how aluminium formed. They are related, but distinct.

 

[lunamoth]

They are related, just as physics and chemistry is related - but nevertheless distinct.
Abiogenesis does not strengthen or weaken the ToE, it is simply distinct from it.

To make an analogy - mechanical repairs and metallurgy are related. But your mechanic can fix your car without understanding how aluminium formed. They are related, but distinct.

That's not a good analogy. It's more like relationship between drawing a stick figure and painting the Sistine Capel. Same basic processes are involved, and the simpler techniques precede the more complex.

Added: it is a weak argument to say they are distinct.

 

[Bunyip]

That's not a good analogy. It's more like relationship between drawing a stick figure and painting the Sistine Capel. Same basic processes are involved, and the simpler techniques precede the more complex.

No that is not true. Natural selection and evolution are about what happens to species over time - not where life began.

Knitting is related to sheep farming. But they are distinct, you can knit a jumper without knowing how sheep are bred.

It is simply a useful distinction, how things change over time is usefully distinct from how life began. Sure, there are some similar processes and phenomena - molecular evolution. Nevertheless it remains useful to distinguish between how life changes and how life began.

Do you need to know where the first egg came from in order to understand how to cook an omelette? A:Nope.

Why do you find it problematic to make such a straightforward distinction? It seems something common to any field of interest or knowledge - so why would it be a problem in this case?

 

[Ouroboros]

That's not a good analogy. It's more like relationship between drawing a stick figure and painting the Sistine Capel. Same basic processes are involved, and the simpler techniques precede the more complex.

Added: it is a weak argument to say they are distinct.

Not quite true. (Edit: that's a bit harsh of me, let me say instead: I disagree. )

They're not like two different aspects of the same.

It's more like:
Abiogenesis = how LEGO pieces are made
Biological Evolution = how to build a spaceship using LEGO.

Or to use your analogy, abiogenesis is how the charcoal is made, and evolution is like drawing a stick figure (virus) or painting the Sistine Chapel (higher life forms) using charcoal. They're in the same universe of things, but you don't have to know how to create your own charcoal to know how to paint using them.

 

[Bunyip]

Added: it is a weak argument to say they are distinct.

It's not an argument at all - it is a statement of fact. The ToE explores how species change, abiogenesis explores the origins of life. Why is this so challenging for you?

 

[Yerda]

It's not an argument at all - it is a statement of fact. The ToE explores how species change, abiogenesis explores the origins of life. Why is this so challenging for you?

I think she's a biologist...

 

[Bunyip]

I think she's a biologist...

If so, that is unfortunate.

 

[Yerda]

It's not an argument at all - it is a statement of fact. The ToE explores how species change, abiogenesis explores the origins of life. Why is this so challenging for you?

I don't know why this gets everyone into a hoohah.

At some time there was no life. Then at some later point there was. It may be (and seems quite likely given that the RNA world hypothesis is the best one we have) that the process that got us from non-life to life was natural selection, as in descent with modification, as in evolution. Not the theory of evolution, the process - the same process that diversified all the living systems we know about.

That is not to say that we have to know how it happened in order to explore how species change, just that it was a step in a process that began before life did.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know why this gets everyone into a hoohah.

At some time there was no life. Then at some later point there was. It may be (and seems quite likely given that the RNA world hypothesis is the best one we have) that the process that got us from non-life to life was natural selection, as in descent with modification, as in evolution. Not the theory of evolution, the process - the same process that diversified all the living systems we know about.

That is not to say that we have to know how it happened in order to explore how species change, just that it was a step in a process that began before life did.

Yeah, same here - it is a useful distinction, I don't see the issue. Especially not how a biologist could possibly imagine that abiogenesis could strengthen or weaken the ToE - seems a bizarre comment.

 

[ScottySatan]

Well no, evolution does not occur faster than selection can count on. The average human for example has some 150,000 minor genetic variations (mutations) which over generations can express themselves in an almost infinite variety of changes.

I see my communication problem there.

There are 2 components to evolution. First is genetic change to create a new trait. Second is selection to change the frequency of the new trait in the population. Darwin discovered step 2 and speculated on the existence of step 1. Now we know a lot about about step 1, but it hasn't been household newsworthy.

Those noble people who argue against creationists like to say that part 1 is all about rare and random point mutations. My point is that this is not the only thing that happens. There are much bigger, much faster genetic changes than that. And that's a good thing to argue on, because advanced creationists correctly point out from our own scientific papers that random point mutations don't cause genetic change fast enough to see evolution go at the rate that we have.

 

[ScottySatan]

Yeah, same here - it is a useful distinction, I don't see the issue. Especially not how a biologist could possibly imagine that abiogenesis could strengthen or weaken the ToE - seems a bizarre comment.

I brought it up because this comes up all the time in debate and every single time without fail, the evolutionist says that abiogenesis and evolution are separate. The next natural step to the argument is to go into abiogenesis, but it doesn't happen. I think the person arguing for evolution just doesn't know anything about abiogenesis, and is passing the buck. I think it makes the person arguing for creationism think they've won the argument, and to be honest, I agree. I agree, and I think if they argued with someone who knew about abiogenesis, as any evolutionary biologist would, things would be different.

I'm trying to encourage people who want to argue about evolution to learn about abiogenesis, because we do have the knowledge to answer those creationist questions. Don't **** around and say you're not going to answer the question because it isn't fair or whatever... Just know your stuff and answer the goddamned question. If you don't know the answer, you'd be more effective to just admit it.

edited to add: not you personally, the royall you.

 

[Bunyip]

I see my communication problem there.

There are 2 components to evolution. First is genetic change to create a new trait. Second is selection to change the frequency of the new trait in the population. Darwin discovered step 2 and speculated on the existence of step 1. Now we know a lot about about step 1, but it hasn't been household newsworthy.

Those noble people who argue against creationists like to say that part 1 is all about rare and random point mutations.

No, that is false - as I said the average human has 150,000 such mutations. They are not at all rare.

My point is that this is not the only thing that happens. There are much bigger, much faster genetic changes than that. And that's a good thing to argue on, because advanced creationists correctly point out from our own scientific papers that random point mutations don't cause genetic change fast enough to see evolution go at the rate that we have.

No, again that is false - there is no evidence to suggest that evolution occurs 'too fast'. What is an 'advanced creationist'?