Abiogenesis is evolution

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

There is no line between the two. There is no "simplest organism" that "started" evolving biologically.


Edit. To make it more clear I am arguing that there is no clear cut distinction. It is still an academic debate on how to classify abiogensis in the terms that we have developed prior to understanding it. There are arguments to be made on both sides but it is not simply nonsense and there are valid arguments as to why abiogensis should be considered simply a part of biological evolution. I personally find it that way as well. There are some arguments to be had but I find they are mostly hair splitting and taking the context of definitions developed prior to abiogensis in a less than prgamatic way.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Indeed. Natural selection would come into play depending on which ones were more efficient at replicating themselves. A lipid membrane does not make life but was the first structure outside of DNA. The other organelles may have even been different cells that had been absorbed and replicated along with the original cell to make a far more complex one.

 

[dust1n]

Indeed. Natural selection would come into play depending on which ones were more efficient at replicating themselves. A lipid membrane does not make life but was the first structure outside of DNA. The other organelles may have even been different cells that had been absorbed and replicated along with the original cell to make a far more complex one.

A lipid membrane probably predates an RNA world, including LNA world or PNA world. But I would agree that natural selection applies to all self-replicating nucleotides and polymers. It's unfortunate that the majority of this part of evolution will forever be lost to us. However, lab experiments show us what is possible and inform us to the possible circumstances.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A lipid membrane probably predates an RNA world, including LNA world or PNA world. But I would agree that natural selection applies to all self-replicating nucleotides and polymers. It's unfortunate that the majority of this part of evolution will forever be lost to us. However, lab experiments show us what is possible and inform us to the possible circumstances.

A lipid membrane in any functional form would not have predated the RNA. Howver lipid membranes as simply an occurrence in nature happens spontaneous with several forms of non-living scenarios.

 

[dust1n]

A lipid membrane in any functional form would not have predated the RNA. Howver lipid membranes as simply an occurrence in nature happens spontaneous with several forms of non-living scenarios.

I agree. I got curious about the necessity for a membrane, and happen to come across this:


"The first cell may have originated in a salty soup in which large biomolecules cluster spontaneously to form a protocell, chemists at Radboud University Nijmegen discovered. PNAS published their work on July 1.

How did the first cell originate in evolution? It is a chicken or the egg causality dilemma: a cell doesn't function without a cell wall, but how does the cell wall form if there is no cell? Research by chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen, suggests that the cell came first.

In a solution containing the biomolecules that are normally locked in a cell (like DNA, RNA, enzymes, proteins) these large biomolecules clustered together spontaneously when the salt concentration was increased. This indicates that a cell wall is not a prerequisite for a cell-like structure."

Protocells formed in salt solution, researchers find

 

[ArtieE]

There is no line between the two. There is no "simplest organism" that "started" evolving biologically.

LOL. Then according to you we must forget abiogenesis and call the simplest atom or molecule alive and say that biological evolution starts there. Since you can't see any line between non-living and living everything is either non-living or living. Take your pick.

 

[Skwim]

Here's how I view the evolutionary timeline.

But it isn't a continuous spectrum. There's a distinct stage in which the process brings about life* after which any change in subsequent organisms can be considered evolution.


TIME LINE:... Process: abiogenesis-------------------------> IBINGO!... life* arises I life forms change: evolution.
During the process of abiogenesis there is no biological evolution because there's no life to evolve. After we have life, then biological evolution can take place.

* The basic characteristics of life.

Living organisms have:

an organized structure performing a specific function
an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
capability of adapting
an ability to germinate or reproduce

Source: biology-online.com​

Not subjective at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

During the process of abiogenesis there is no evolution because there's no life to evolve.

There's no biological evolution, yes. The problem is that there's more recognition today that there's a chemical evolutionary process as well. Abiogenesis is the result of random and selective process, just like the biological, even though it's on the same level or in the same way. There's no sexual selection for instance.

There's an overlap between the fields, just like there's an overlap between psychology and sociology. If you read psychology, you will touch on sociological issues. And if you read sociology, you will read some psychology. They're separate, but they're also the same.

I see abiogenesis as a separate issue from biological evolution, in the more narrow and specific sense, but I do see it as a part of evolution in a wider sense.

And I think that's what some members are trying to say.

 

[ArtieE]

But it isn't a continuous spectrum. There's a distinct stage in which the process brings about life* after which any change in subsequent organisms can be considered evolution.

Biological evolution.

TIME LINE...... Process: abiogenesis-------------------------> IBINGO! life* arises I life forms change: evolution.

Biological evolution.

During the process of abiogenesis there is no biological evolution because there's no life to evolve. After we have life, then biological evolution can take place.

 

[ArtieE]

I see abiogenesis as a separate issue from biological evolution, in the more narrow and specific sense, but I do see it as a part of evolution in a wider sense.

And I think that's what some members are trying to say.

Abiogenesis evolution is the evolution from non-life to simplest life.
Biological evolution is the evolution from simplest life onwards.
They are both evolutions but biological evolution is independent of abiogenesis evolution and would work the same if there was no abiogenesis and a god or alien created simplest life on this planet.

 

[Skwim]

There's no biological evolution, yes. The problem is that there's more recognition today that there's a chemical evolutionary process as well.

Yes, just as there is planetary evolution and evolution in medical transplant procedures. That the chemical process can be described as evolving is a moot point, as well as misleading.

Abiogenesis is the result of random and selective process, just like the biological, even though it's on the same level or in the same way.

Just what is this "selective" process you talk about?

There's an overlap between the fields, just like there's an overlap between psychology and sociology.

You're conflating a change in the chemical state, which you're calling "evolution," with the biological evolution of life. Don't do that. There's no overlap whatsoever. The chemical processes that bring about life essentially end the moment life arises. Life then exists. But keep in mind, if the subsequent offshoots of that life never change then no evolution takes place. However, when additional individual organisms exhibit some kind of differentiation from their progenitors, THEN evolution can be said to occur.

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis evolution is the evolution from non-life to simplest life.
Biological evolution is the evolution from simplest life onwards.
They are both evolutions but biological evolution is independent of abiogenesis evolution and would work the same if there was no abiogenesis and a god or alien created simplest life on this planet.

Using "evolution" to describe the organic chemical process of abiogenesis is no more apropos than using it to describe the oxidation of ketones to esters with a peroxycarboxylic acid

​

It's unnecessarily misleading.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, just as there is planetary evolution and evolution in medical transplant procedures. That the chemical process can be described as evolving is a moot point.

Not really, since it is a term that's used in science.

Just what is this "selective" process you talk about?

"Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.[31]" From Wiki: Abiogenesis.

Source:

1. Follmann, H; Brownson, C (2009). "Darwin's warm little pond revisited: from molecules to the origin of life".Naturwissenschaften 96 (11): 1265–92. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0602-1. PMID 19760276.

You're conflating a change in chemistry, which you're calling "evolution," with the biological evolution of life. Don't do that. There's no overlap whatsoever.

They do overlap to some degree. Biological evolution as a theory won't stand or fall depending on the truth of abiogenesis, but they do have some overlapping properties. Mutations for instance are sometimes biochemical processes probably similar or same as part of process of how life began, or cell division, the membrane, isn't genetic code or a protein, but a lipid.

The chemical processes that bring about life essentially end the moment life arises. Life then exists. But, if the subsequent offshoots of that life never change then no evolution takes place. However, when additional individual organisms exhibit some kind of change from their progenitors, THEN evolution can be said to occur.

Biological evolution, yes. But chemical or molecular evolution is an accepted term.

 

[Skwim]

Not really, since it is a term that's used in science.

So then you'd have no trouble using "germination" to describe the process of human embryogenesis because the term is a scientific one. Interesting.

"Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.[31]" From Wiki: Abiogenesis.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree. I got curious about the necessity for a membrane, and happen to come across this:


"The first cell may have originated in a salty soup in which large biomolecules cluster spontaneously to form a protocell, chemists at Radboud University Nijmegen discovered. PNAS published their work on July 1.

How did the first cell originate in evolution? It is a chicken or the egg causality dilemma: a cell doesn't function without a cell wall, but how does the cell wall form if there is no cell? Research by chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen, suggests that the cell came first.

In a solution containing the biomolecules that are normally locked in a cell (like DNA, RNA, enzymes, proteins) these large biomolecules clustered together spontaneously when the salt concentration was increased. This indicates that a cell wall is not a prerequisite for a cell-like structure."

Protocells formed in salt solution, researchers find

That was a really great link. Thank you for sharing this.

LOL. Then according to you we must forget abiogenesis and call the simplest atom or molecule alive and say that biological evolution starts there. Since you can't see any line between non-living and living everything is either non-living or living. Take your pick.

I feel you are failing to understand or absorb the argument I'm making. At which exact moment in time would you state that "biological evolution" began? If you don't understand the difference between describing the exact same chain of chemical reactions and developments from the beginning to now as biological evolution and all the way to the big bang to now then I don't think you are taking this seriously or rationally.

 

[ArtieE]

I feel you are failing to understand or absorb the argument I'm making. At which exact moment in time would you state that "biological evolution" began?

When life began. If the scientific establishment pronounce that life started with the first cell, then that's where "biological evolution" began. If they pronounce that life started with the virus, then that's where "biological evolution" began. Wherever they pronounce life started, there "biological evolution" starts. They determine what's to be called alive or not.

If you don't understand the difference between describing the exact same chain of chemical reactions and developments from the beginning to now as biological evolution and all the way to the big bang to now then I don't think you are taking this seriously or rationally.

What does this mean?

 

[Bunyip]

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

With the emergence of the first species.

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]

Monk Of Reason said: "At what time did it stop being abiogensis and become evolution?"

With the emergence of the first species.

With the emergence of the first collections of atoms and molecules having all the processes and properties the scientific establishment requires to be called alive. Then it went from abiogenesis "evolution" to "biological evolution".

 

[dust1n]

The transition from self-replicating, data-storing molecules that aren't traditionally consider life up to the simplest agreed upon form of "first living organism" can likely all be described in terms of biological evolution.

The transition from general chemistry to self-replicating, data-storing molecules likely does not resemble what anyone would call biological evolution, despite the fact a great amount of chemical change and diversity is happening.

 

[ArtieE]

The transition

Evolution

from self-replicating, data-storing molecules that aren't traditionally consider life up to the simplest agreed upon form of "first living organism" can likely all be described in terms of biological evolution.

Obviously self-replicating, data-storing molecules can't go through any biological evolution because they aren't alive in the first place. If they are officially declared to be alive then they can go through biological evolution. Only something defined as living can go through biological evolution.

The transition

Evolution

from general chemistry to self-replicating, data-storing molecules likely does not resemble what anyone would call biological evolution,

True.

despite the fact a great amount of chemical change and diversity is happening.