Abiogenesis is evolution

[dust1n]

To deny abiogenesis when you argue against creationists makes the scientific viewpoint look a lot worse than it really is.

I think most people find it incredibly difficult to convince anyone who doesn't care about science at all to even consider evolution. Abiogenisis is even more complex, far more debated, far from being resolved, and requires a pretty heavy understanding of genetics.

 

[dust1n]

What's confusing is that molecular biologists deal with biomolecules all day, where there are 50 shades of grey *WHIP!* between something that is alive and something that isn't. That kind of person is going to have a different paradigm than you.

I challenge the assumption that there is a consistent/meaningful difference between what is a live and what isn't. I'm backed up in this by there being no consensus on the definition of life. There used to be, but later came all the exceptions to the rules.

Here's how I view the evolutionary timeline.

Violet represents a completely inorganic moon rock, and red is a contemporary mammal. Some will call something alive at 450 nm, some will at 500. That distinction is subjective. Natural selection is a constant force across the whole spectrum. The things that replicated, inorganically, on accident, made things that also replicated inorganically on accident. The ones that do it more quickly...do it more quickly and make more copies of themselves. Those things soon appear in greater numbers. It's extremely well documented that non-living things do replicate...better than climate change...about as well as the link between smoking and cancer.

Any difference between abiogenesis and evolution is a mental barrier in your head, that only experts and creationists seem to not have, not an actual physical difference.

My question to you is, why wouldn't natural selection change the proportions of non-living things? Why wouldn't non-living things exhibit a change that selection can act on?

Most of the insinuations mixed in here are far from scientific.

 

[ScottySatan]

Most of the insinuations mixed in here are far from scientific.

Call 'em out and I'll back 'em up.

 

[dust1n]

Call 'em out and I'll back 'em up.

Sure.

Violet represents a completely inorganic moon rock, and red is a contemporary mammal. Some will call something alive at 450 nm, some will at 500. That distinction is subjective. Natural selection is a constant force across the whole spectrum. The things that replicated, inorganically, on accident, made things that also replicated inorganically on accident. The ones that do it more quickly...do it more quickly and make more copies of themselves. Those things soon appear in greater numbers.

"Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment."

How would this apply to inorganic moon rock? What biological trait does a chunk of inorganic material have? How does inorganic moon rock "reproduce"?

In general I don't see how the metaphor of the electromaganetic spectrum applies. What is 10 pm? Or one 1 km? What is being counted?

It's extremely well documented that non-living things do replicate...better than climate change...about as well as the link between smoking and cancer.

There are some non-living things that do replicate. This doesn't mean that all non-livings replicate.

Any difference between abiogenesis and evolution is a mental barrier in your head, that only experts and creationists seem to not have, not an actual physical difference.

Hmm, in some way I agree with what you are saying here. I mean.. both are sort of inevitable circumstances of given conditions.

My question to you is, why wouldn't natural selection change the proportions of non-living things?

Because the overwhelming majority of non-living things aren't replicating. No traits are being passed down. If the moon gets hit be a meteor, the change just happens to all pertinent material. It doesn't change the traits of things that will reproduce from what remains.

Why wouldn't non-living things exhibit a change that selection can act on?

What's the selection that's acted upon? Everything that exists has been selected? By what mechanism?

 

[Parsimony]

In order to have Darwinian evolution, three attributes have to be present:

(1) The presence of a genotype which gives rise to phenotype.
(2) The ability to pass that genotype on through reproduction.
(3) Differential reproductive success associated with individuals of different genotypes.

Before you have all three of these characters, you do not have Darwinian evolution. Chemical evolution of a sort, perhaps, but not Darwinian.

 

[Bunyip]

What's confusing is that molecular biologists deal with biomolecules all day, where there are 50 shades of grey *WHIP!* between something that is alive and something that isn't. That kind of person is going to have a different paradigm than you.

I challenge the assumption that there is a consistent/meaningful difference between what is a live and what isn't. I'm backed up in this by there being no consensus on the definition of life. There used to be, but later came all the exceptions to the rules.

Here's how I view the evolutionary timeline.

Violet represents a completely inorganic moon rock, and red is a contemporary mammal. Some will call something alive at 450 nm, some will at 500. That distinction is subjective. Natural selection is a constant force across the whole spectrum. The things that replicated, inorganically, on accident, made things that also replicated inorganically on accident. The ones that do it more quickly...do it more quickly and make more copies of themselves. Those things soon appear in greater numbers. It's extremely well documented that non-living things do replicate...better than climate change...about as well as the link between smoking and cancer.

Any difference between abiogenesis and evolution is a mental barrier in your head, that only experts and creationists seem to not have, not an actual physical difference.

My question to you is, why wouldn't natural selection change the proportions of non-living things? Why wouldn't non-living things exhibit a change that selection can act on?

You didn't answer the question - what is confusing you about the fact that evolution (how life changes) and abiogenesis (how life began) are distinct? Saying it is a 'mental barrier' is frankly laughable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You didn't answer the question - what is confusing you about the fact that evolution (how life changes) and abiogenesis (how life began) are distinct? Saying it is a 'mental barrier' is frankly laughable.

It isn't entirely laughable. If we consider the theory of evolution we have to at some point consider abiogensis. Everything from the forming of DNA from simpler RNA to the chemical compositions of our cells have to do with abiogensis. The difference is that we don't fully understand abiogensis while we do have a far more enriched understanding of evolution as a process. But even if for whatever reason abiogensis was wrong and there was a kickstarter to life that was unnatural, the process of evolution remains true. So in that sense there is a difference. I am not saying I fully agree with him but I am saying I understand why his claim isn't laughable.

 

[Bunyip]

It isn't entirely laughable. If we consider the theory of evolution we have to at some point consider abiogensis. Everything from the forming of DNA from simpler RNA to the chemical compositions of our cells have to do with abiogensis. The difference is that we don't fully understand abiogensis while we do have a far more enriched understanding of evolution as a process. But even if for whatever reason abiogensis was wrong and there was a kickstarter to life that was unnatural, the process of evolution remains true. So in that sense there is a difference. I am not saying I fully agree with him but I am saying I understand why his claim isn't laughable.

Well in that it does not effect evolution if abiogenesis is true or not, they are independant. Associated sure, linked even - but not dependant upon each other.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well in that it does not effect evolution if abiogenesis is true or not, they are independant. Associated sure, linked even - but not dependant upon each other.

Abiogensis IS evolution but simply the early stages. It would be like saying the evolution of bacteria had nothing to do with the evolution of animals. Even if we could not prove that multi-cellular organisms developed from single celled organisms the process of evolution is demonstrably true. Does that make sense?

 

[ArtieE]

Abiogensis IS evolution but simply the early stages. It would be like saying the evolution of bacteria had nothing to do with the evolution of animals. Even if we could not prove that multi-cellular organisms developed from single celled organisms the process of evolution is demonstrably true. Does that make sense?

1. "Life" may have arrived on a comet.
2. "Life" may have arisen through abiogenesis.
3. "Life" may have been created by some "god".
4. "Life" may have been created on this planet by extra terrestrials.
5. "Life" may have been the result of some unknown process or intelligence or whatever we know nothing about at present.

and on and on.

Evolution would have proceeded from there.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. "Life" may have arrived on a comet.
2. "Life" may have arisen through abiogenesis.
3. "Life" may have been created by some "god".
4. "Life" may have been created on this planet by extra terrestrials.
5. "Life" may have been the result of some unknown process or intelligence or whatever we know nothing about at present.

and on and on.

Evolution would have proceeded from there.

1. Multicellular life could have come from god gluing two cells together and evolution went on from there.
2. Multicellular life could have happened by accident without ever being single celled.
3. ect
4. ect
5. ect

Its all irrelevant. All except for 3 and 5 are still abiogensis. Aliens at some point in time must have arisen from non-life and if life was implanted here on earth through transpermiation then it would have had an abiogensis development on another planet.

The process of evolution is a fact and no one can take that away. However abiogensis is A PART of evolution. Not all evolution is abiogensis but all abiogensis is evolution. If evolution were not true then by extension abiogensis is not true. If abiogenisis is not true then evolution by extension is unaffected.

 

[ArtieE]

The process of evolution is a fact and no one can take that away. However abiogensis is A PART of evolution. Not all evolution is abiogensis but all abiogensis is evolution. If evolution were not true then by extension abiogensis is not true. If abiogenisis is not true then evolution by extension is unaffected.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter.
Evolution is any process of formation or growth; development.
Biological evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Abiogenesis is evolution. Biological evolution is unaffected by abiogenesis. Biological evolution would be true even if there was no abiogenesis and "life" was created by some "god".

Just thought I would clarify things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter.
Evolution is any process of formation or growth; development.
Biological evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Abiogenesis is evolution. Biological evolution is unaffected by abiogenesis. Biological evolution would be true even if there was no abiogenesis and "life" was created by some "god".

Just thought I would clarify things.

You may clarify it. Make sure that you are right when you do. Abiogensis would be a form of biological evolution as it uses organic materials (organic materials being required). It is the precursor to what you have narrowed down to as "biological evolution". The problem is it encompasses abiogensis. What you mean to say is that abiogensis is a specific theory within evolution (still a part of evolution) and that even if it is found to be wrong it does not mean the theory as a whole is wrong. It is not separate any more than the way our model of human evolution would be tied. If our model of human evolution was found to be wrong it does not mean that evolution is wrong. But that does not mean that human evolution is not evolution or its completely separate.

 

[ArtieE]

You may clarify it. Make sure that you are right when you do. Abiogenesis would be a form of biological evolution

Of course not. There was no biology evolving, no biological evolution until abiogenesis had evolved life. There was no life that could evolve before abiogenesis was finished. What took place before life evolved was just plain and simple evolution not biological evolution. Biological evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. There were no biological populations before the process of abiogenesis had produced them.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So this has been a good read...

It always amazes me that people, seemingly in agreement about everything else, can still find a reason to argue.

Scotty started this thread so he'll get my first response:

I totally see what you're getting at, man. And I think I understand why you started this thread. I've often wondered how all of the knowns of evolutionary science are taken by creationists when an absolute explanation of abiogenesis can't be given. Personally, the reason that I continually use the explanation of it being an unknown is because, for the most part, it is. We can all agree on that, right? We have some great theories and we have some preliminary understandings, but it's not locked in yet. And it's not nearly as easy to explain the theories behind abiogenetic origins as it is evolution.

Which brings me to what Bunyip keeps getting at.

Because of the vast number of knowns of evolutionary science, explaining and describing things in layman's terms is something that almost all of us can do proficiently. (At least proficiently enough to handily debate someone who wants to make an argument for intelligent design or creationism.) The truths of evolutionary science don't require a complex knowledge of abiogenetic study.

Using your line of thinking, Scotty, the creationist, at some point near the end of the debate, is reduced to a god of the gaps argument, which we all know is quite lacking. That's when, as I think we all know, you get the push-back from creationists who will try and equate science to requiring faith because of the unknowns etc. etc. and what you're trying to combat, if I'm not mistaken. They may think, as you've said, that they've caught you in a "gotcha" moment, but that's still not the case because, as you've said, there are some knowns in the realm of abiogenesis. Their beaming sense of victory, even though they never produced any type of alternative theory, or scientific framework other than magic, doesn't make them victorious, does it? If they feel good about themselves, so what? I mean, I'm all for science education, but when you're dealing with people who can lose every aspect of a debate but leave you with seemingly a single question mark at the end and suddenly feel like that's enough to completely discredit pretty much all of scientific understanding, I'm not too concerned. Anyone reading or watching a debate like that know which argument made the most sense.

That moment, when they decide to keep harping on the "gap" in evolutionary explanations of existence, would be the time to address some of our understandings of abiogenetic processes, if necessary, thus showing the difference between their ideas of science requiring faith and their wild *** guess about magic sky fairies (or whatever else is out there.)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course not. There was no biology evolving, no biological evolution until abiogenesis had evolved life. There was no life that could evolve before abiogenesis was finished. What took place before life evolved was just plain and simple evolution not biological evolution. Biological evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. There were no biological populations before the process of abiogenesis had produced them.

There is no hard line between life and not life. Where did biological evolution begin? You get back into the issue of what is life. And currently there is debate in the scientific community. Think about this, if you have a protein that is replicating itself would that be considered life? Would that be considered biological? Would that be considered biological evolution if that was the beginning and the basis of all life? The consensus seems to be yes it can be considered biological evolution. There are traits within proteins that replicate. They are organic in nature. Why would that not be considered biological in your eyes?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The truths of evolutionary science don't require a complex knowledge of abiogenetic study.

Except that the entire essence of evolution- the 'truth' as it's taught- is that life in all it's forms is ultimately an accident, as opposed to purposely designed.

It does not follow logically that God would create an entire functional universe, solar system, Earth as a habitat, all the necessary functioning hardware and software for life to reproduce, and yet have no particular interest in the result after all that? that it resulted in creative intelligent itself, one single species that is a means for the universe to be aware of its own existence and give thanks to it's creator.. was merely an unintended consequence?!

 

[ArtieE]

I totally see what you're getting at, man. And I think I understand why you started this thread. I've often wondered how all of the knowns of evolutionary science are taken by creationists when an absolute explanation of abiogenesis can't be given.

Many just put in their god instead of abiogenesis as the cause of life and go with evolution from there.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Except that the entire essence of evolution- the 'truth' as it's taught- is that life in all it's forms is ultimately an accident, as opposed to purposely designed.

It does not follow logically that God would create an entire functional universe, solar system, Earth as a habitat, all the necessary functioning hardware and software for life to reproduce, and yet have no particular interest in the result after all that? that it resulted in creative intelligent itself, one single species that is a means for the universe to be aware of its own existence and give thanks to it's creator.. was merely an unintended consequence?!

It doesn't follow logically that there is a god, let alone that he created anything...

You're basing this on several false assumptions, the biggest being that we are some kind of pinnacle to the evolutionary process. That discredits the current and former processes of countless other species. Heck, we aren't even the only sentient version of hominid, and that's only taking into account evolutionary history since the mammalian explosion. Unfortunately we will never be able to study the behavior of prehistoric animals, so there will always be a big question mark about the history sentience. But if we aren't even the only game in our own town, what does that say about the idea that we were specially created by an omniscient being who otherwise refuses to intervene in the natural processes?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Many just put in their god instead of abiogenesis as the cause of life and go with evolution from there.

Which is fine, I think. As long as the sciences aren't denied based on personal preference.

I mean, mythology exists in the presence of unknowns, right? That's the very definition of mythology. Theists can attribute the beginning to whatever they want, until it's a firm known.