Abiogenesis is evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

Technically, it is entirely possible, at least slightly more than a 0% chance, that those letter were not put there by a person but washed up randomly. However, we could very easily conclude that they were put their by design, given the experimental examples that I used above.

Now, the flip side of that is not what you think, however.

If you are to assume that the existence of the cosmos, which has only every shown itself to be random via millions or billions of examples, is somehow different from being random, how would you support it?

Essentially, you're trying to make the argument that looking at the properly formed symbols, which spell out the word HELP, are obvious for design, thus the entirety of the world is evidence of design, you're begging the question. This is no different than what Ray Comfort did in his epic fail of a debate on national television and what countless others have done before and after. (I just pick on Ray because he's easy. There are heavier hitters that have continually made the same mistake, and you yourself have admitted that you can't support it with evidence.)

This:

Based on the conclusions garnered from hundreds, possibly, thousands of other examples like it, can be quickly filed away as having been designed. The probability that the stone face was produced randomly would be irrational unless you have literally hundreds or thousands of contradictory examples to the former, showing how this could possibly be a random formation.

This:

However, has literally millions upon millions of examples supporting the deduction that it is a random occurrence. (Or would you look at this photo and point to the obvious design and fingerprint of an omniscient deity?) There are so many examples to these random formations, for example, that we even understand the variables and processes that shape them. We know, to a larger extent, what their formation entailed, based on scientific principles that were discovered before these things were even known to exist. Those very same scientific principles are used for predicting and studying other phenomena, all over the solar system, which match what we would expect to happen in a universe created by random processes.

If you're to argue, for example, that sun sets are pretty therefore there must be a god - then you have to likewise admit that there are far more numerous examples of that same designer being a complete dunce when it comes to all of the useless, random, crap that is just flying around in the darkness for no reason whatsoever...

OK this deserves a detailed response I don't have time for right now- off for weekend will respond later

one thing for now- the entire cosmos is fundamentally different from it's contents, to propose a natural cause for all existence is to say that the laws of nature can be ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws, that's a paradox unique to atheism. a paradox creative intelligence can solve being not being bound by laws, the freedom of creativity is part of it's power of explanation. must run..

 

[ArtieE]

The process of creating organic material from inorganic material is not abiogenisis but the creation of replicating proteins out of that would be.

The definition of abiogenesis is "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances." If you make up your own definitions I'm out.

 

[dust1n]

The definition of abiogenesis is "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances." If you make up your own definitions I'm out.

Eh.

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The definition of abiogenesis is "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances." If you make up your own definitions I'm out.

I am not making up my own definitions. You do realize this process happened over a longer period of time between now and the dinosaurs? It wasn't a single day. It was the process.

 

[ArtieE]

While the long list of excruciatingly finely tuned mathematical constants and algorithms necessary for physics, chemistry, biology to be functional, may be safely assumed to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason.

Probability is a funny thing with theists. The god who fine tuned the mathematical constants and algorithms necessary for physics, chemistry, biology to be functional, may be safely assumed to have accidentally blundered into existence or always existed for no particular reason.

 

[jonathan180iq]

one thing for now- the entire cosmos is fundamentally different from it's contents, to propose a natural cause for all existence is to say that the laws of nature can be ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws, that's a paradox unique to atheism. a paradox creative intelligence can solve being not being bound by laws, the freedom of creativity is part of it's power of explanation. must run..

I'll wait for your response to go into further detail - but what are the laws other than what we have discovered about how the universe operates? No one is attributing tangible qualities to some mythical process behind these laws. They are little more than our understanding of what things in the universe do and how they relate to one another. They aren't actually functioning governors or intelligent deciders of fate - they are simply frameworks that allow us to describe the world around us. If we had no language or intelligence to describe them, we would just grunt them with something simple like "stick fall down".

"Stick fall down" is not a paradox in a random universe - it is simply a side effect of excess matter(mass) - which simply is.
Sticks could fall up, for all we care - as long as it was observable and repeatable, the statement and knowledge that sticks fall up would still be accurate. Reality of something doesn't make it a paradox unless you're playing some hoola-hoop game with reason in attempts to discredit...reason.

 

[ArtieE]

Eh.

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Sure. Non-life to life. Non-alive matter includes organic compounds, inorganic and inanimate material.

 

[ArtieE]

I am not making up my own definitions. You do realize this process happened over a longer period of time between now and the dinosaurs? It wasn't a single day. It was the process.

? Can you rephrase? Did it happen between now and the dinosaurs?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

? Can you rephrase? Did it happen between now and the dinosaurs?

The process from the first semblance of organic chemistry to the first simple cell took longer than the whole of time between us and the calamity that ended the dinosaurs. It took that long. There was no point in time in those millions of years that we are able to call it life rather than its previous form. We can tell the difference between life and non-life as it is now as we have fundamentally different properties. But when talking about biological evolution it involves the change and diversification and in some cases increases in complexity. The oldest ancestor we could trace (though I doubt we could ever actually trace it) would be the first link of simple compounds to make a replicating protein that survived to continually make new proteins for the next 4.1 billion years. There has never been a single replication since that has been identified as something totally new from its predecessor.

Oh. getting back to what I was saying. The earliest difinitive evidence of simple life on earth was dated around 3.5 billion years ago. The estimation right now of when the processes that would eventually create life could be around 4.1 billion years ago. That is an estimated 600 million years to go from chemicals to the simplest of prokaryotes. The time since the dinosaurs to now is a measly 65 million years. Hardly a 1/10th of that time.

 

[Bunyip]

Abiogensis IS evolution but simply the early stages.

No, that is false. Evolution is ablut how species change over time, abiogenesis is about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

.....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?

 

[Ouroboros]

Probability is a funny thing with theists. The god who fine tuned the mathematical constants and algorithms necessary for physics, chemistry, biology to be functional, may be safely assumed to have accidentally blundered into existence or always existed for no particular reason.

No, I think the problem is rather, why did God need to fine tune the universe for life, and then have to create it by hand? The miracle is either that we exist in a world that doesn't allow us to exist (out of tune , that would be more amazing to live in a world we wouldn't be able to, only magic could help us do it) or God created a fine tuned universe that can produce life by itself (and the obvious end is that life comes from nature). The middle ground is very confusing (God taking a long path of creating a Big Bang, stars, galaxies, fine tuning and what-not, but then take a shortcut and form life by hand).

 

[lunamoth]

If abiogenesis is not evolution, when did evolution officially start?

The analogy of metallurgy to mechanics (and related metaphors) is still not right. Abiogenesis is a process, not a thing. It is not a building blocks or material vs. process, but a continuing process abiogenesis -> cells/ diversification.

And yes< I am a working biologist in Genetics/molecular biology.

*sorry about any typos am on a tablet

 

[ArtieE]

If abiogenesis is not evolution, when did evolution officially start?

Evolution is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. Biological evolution started when evolution had produced collections of atoms and molecules so complicated and interacting in such a way that we call the collections "alive".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, that is false. Evolution is about how species change over time, abiogenesis is about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

At what time did it stop being abiogensis and become evolution? What development of the chemicals? Was it when they created a membrane? Was it when they began the double helix of RNA to make DNA? And where did you learn that it is not? Do not mistake that because evolution does not hinge on abiogensis does not mean that abiogensis is not under the umbrella of evolution. The line between biological evolution and abiogensis is non-existent. Just as the line between humans and our ancestors is non-existent. The mechanism and function are more or less the same but a vast difference in complexity.

Now lets also remember that abiogensis isn't simply the transformation of non-life into life as a singular event. It is the process in which we start with basic organic compounds and begin the chain reaction of chemistry that will eventually be classified as life. Abiogensis is the process that takes RNA strands into eventually DNA strands and eventually the first cell. But prior to all of that it still follows the same rules as biological evolution from the very inception of the first strand that would remain unbroken in its cycle to this day.

 

[ArtieE]

At what time did it stop being abiogensis and become evolution?

Abiogenesis is evolution. Biological evolution started from first life.

What development of the chemicals? Was it when they created a membrane? Was it when they began the double helix of RNA to make DNA? And where did you learn that it is not?

From the scientific establishment. If they define a virus to be alive but nothing less complex is alive then abiogenesis (evolution) goes up to viruses and Biological Evolution starts from there.

 

[dust1n]

Abiogensis is the process that takes RNA strands into eventually DNA strands and eventually the first cell. But prior to all of that it still follows the same rules as biological evolution from the very inception of the first strand that would remain unbroken in its cycle to this day.

This seems a tad bit unsubstantiated. EDIT: Nevermind, think I misread your last sentence there the first time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abiogenesis is evolution. Biological evolution started from first life.From the scientific establishment. If they define a virus to be alive but nothing less complex is alive then abiogenesis (evolution) goes up to viruses and Biological Evolution starts from there.

Viruses are not a pre-cellular structure. Without biological evolution they cannot reproduce. The qualification for "life" that they do not have is not something that bars them from be affected by the same evolution. Similarly there is no difference between the processes of "evolution" and "biological evolution". The only meaningful distinction between the two is when you have it being used to describe the changes of a concept or changes in designs. For example there is the evolution of rock music. There is the evolution of the internet. Evolution of laws and governments. This is not the same as the evolution being used to describe what happened in pre-cellular organic chemistry.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This seems a tad bit unsubstantiated. EDIT: Nevermind, think I misread your last sentence there the first time.

Yeah. The origin of species would dictate that is is true. Though it is possible and even likely that at least two different RNA strands were used to create DNA. Its is probable that those RNA strands originated from the same replicating chain but its at least somewhat possible that a similar chain developed and were able to bond through mutations.

 

[ArtieE]

Viruses are not a pre-cellular structure. Without biological evolution they cannot reproduce. The qualification for "life" that they do not have is not something that bars them from be affected by the same evolution. Similarly there is no difference between the processes of "evolution" and "biological evolution".

Evolution is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

Abiogenesis we call the evolution that ended in the simplest living organisms.
Biological evolution is the evolution that started with the simplest living organisms.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah. The origin of species would dictate that is is true. Though it is possible and even likely that at least two different RNA strands were used to create DNA. Its is probable that those RNA strands originated from the same replicating chain but its at least somewhat possible that a similar chain developed and were able to bond through mutations.

Hard to say. You have lipids, various types or RNA, LNA, and other weird stuff, membranes, etc, many of which pop up independently. Do I consider the formation of necessary membranes were formed first by chemical reaction rather than RNA sequencing replicating as evolutionary selection? In seems to me that there is a worthy of distinction about chemical replication, because the traits of various organic compounds are not passed down and selected via random mutation. They have no metabolism. Amino acids become increasingly complex, but it's not necessarily natural selection at all.