Abiogenesis is evolution

[Bunyip]

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.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense - evolution and abiogenesis are different arguments. How can you imagine that to be 'passing the buck'? Is is 'passing the buck' when your cooking book doesn't mention how lettuce evolved?

I think it makes the person arguing for creationism think they've won the argument,

How does not understanding a simple distinction constitute a win for the creationist?

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.

I can answer questions about abiogenesis, and evolution - what on earth is the problem with distinguishing between them?

 

[ScottySatan]

No, that is false - as I said the average human has 150,000 such mutations. They are not at all rare. No, again that is false - there is no evidence to suggest that evolution occurs 'too fast'. What is an 'advanced creationist'?

No, again that's not what I meant. If we could talk, I'd explain, but forum messages are too short and hard. maybe we should just forget it unless you can simplify it all into a short question.

 

[Bunyip]

No, again that's not what I meant. If we could talk, I'd explain, but forum messages are too short and hard. maybe we should just forget it unless you can simplify it all into a short question.

Why is it a problem to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution? They are different fields, discussing different things.

How is failing to understand that they are different a win for creationists?

 

[ScottySatan]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense - evolution and abiogenesis are different arguments. How can you imagine that to be 'passing the buck'? Is is 'passing the buck' when your cooking book doesn't mention how lettuce evolved? How does not understanding a simple distinction constitute a win for the creationist?I can answer questions about abiogenesis, and evolution - what on earth is the problem with distinguishing between them?

Well maybe you're the unique one I haven't seen yet. If you've got an online argument between you and...the other side, I'm not actually sure which one you are, and it includes both evolution and abiogenesis, and it includes a bunch of good stuff on both subjects while you strictly maintain that they're two things, please show me. Because I don't think it exists, when it should.

 

[ScottySatan]

Why is it a problem to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution? They are different fields, discussing different things.

How is failing to understand that they are different a win for creationists?

I've said why at least twice. I'm getting tired of you.

 

[Bunyip]

Well maybe you're the unique one I haven't seen yet. If you've got an online argument between you and...the other side, I'm not actually sure which one you are, and it includes both evolution and abiogenesis, and it includes a bunch of good stuff on both subjects while you strictly maintain that they're two things, please show me. Because I don't think it exists, when it should.

You don't understand the difference between how species change over time and how life began? Seriously?

What is it about such a clear distinction you are finding challenging?

Imagine that you are discussing the football match you watched last night - that would be different from discussing where the first ball came from right? Or do you not see that distinction either?

 

[Bunyip]

I've said why at least twice. I'm getting tired of you.

Well no, the only reasons you have given were that you don't understand the difference. You need a reason better than simply not understanding what two words mean.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Good point. That's why many times in discussions I bring up discoveries that show that many of these things can very possibly be natural events.

Here are some examples of discoveries:
1. Amino acids exist in space (very important since that's what the synthesis use to build polypeptides, i.e. proteins, the building blocks)
2. Simple sugars exist in space (sugar is an important part of DNA, it part of the chain)
3. Other carbon based molecules exist in space (on Titan for instance, petrol, if I remember right)
4. Self-replicating lipids (if I remember right, which is similar or same as the cell membrane. Correct me if I'm wrong, sometimes I don't remember details correctly.)
5. Primitive metabolic systems emerging naturally from non-living matter (just something discovered a year ago or so)
6. ... don't remember... there are a bunch of other things
7. At least 3 of the 4 (or rather 5) nucleotides have been shown can occur naturally in the right conditions (maybe all of them today, my information there is a few years old)
8. hmm... well. Let's talk about what RNA is and how it corresponds to DNA, and that a virus is an RNA strand without a cell or any capacity of replicating itself. Why would it exist unless it was some form of precursor to the more complex DNA? It's like finding a screw under a car and conclude that the screw has nothing to do with the car...
9. I'll remember more later on.

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.

I tried many times to bring up the evidence we do have for naturally occurring things that point to abiogenesis (see above).

Oh, now I remember, in chaos theory (and I think it's something coming in chemistry/physics/biology/etc) is the self-organizing emergent systems. In other words, systems that by the interaction of the smaller parts create larger systems, like a swarm of birds or bees. There's more to this than people often realize. I saw a flock of birds being chased by a predator bird, and it was amazing to see how they instantaneous moved in unison. They acted as one unit, 200-300 birds, in fractions of seconds. They even split up, and joined again, and they must've taken turn leading the group, but they acted as one being, one thought.

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

Since you posted it to someone else, I took on myself to be the royall person answering.

--edit

Oh, yes.
6. We now can find and analyze some of the microbes, earliest life forms in the strata. Why it would hide in the lowest, oldest strata, and not any other life forms... unless it was first.

 

[Bunyip]

ScottySatan

1. Evolution: How species change over time.
2. Abiogenesis: How life emerged.

What is confusing you about making a distinction between 1. and 2. .

 

[shawn001]

Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research

The period of abiogenesis is here represented by the words "First Life ?" It is not part of evolution.

"The essay can be read here
One of the problems that Christian fundamentalists (specifically Biblical literalists) have in dealing with biologists who say "Evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are two different topics" is that they have no answer. If they accept that definition, then they lose one of their prime arguments: that "evolution" can't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. If they lose that connection, they have a much harder time denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and most creationists have been forced, by the pure weight of the evidence, to accept that evolution occurs - on a "micro" level, another distinction creationists make so that they can continue to deny at least a part of evolutionary theory.

So when a creationist says: "What's more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term 'evolution' must somehow be further extended to include life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution." ( - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -)

This is such abysmal logic it is hard to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The actual statement Fernandez is making is: "If we creationists have any chance at fighting evolutionary theory, we must include the origin of life in it, so that we can point to at least something and claim that evolution can't explain it".

The definition of evolution is being stretched to include the origin of life only by the creationists. Change in gene frequency through time is the genetic basis for any definition. However, as apologists such as Fernandez are well aware, genetics makes its outward expression as the phenotype - the physical entity that embodies those genes. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, not upon the genotype, and changes in gene frequency are manifest, and measurable, as changes in morphology. Genetic changes in living creatures can also be measured directly by specifying the genotype, but for fossils, morphology is what we have, and it is more than adequate. So the definition hasn't been stretched, at least not by biologists.

No theory of biological evolution has every tried to account for the existence of everything. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.

But why would creationists insist upon stretching the definition of biological evolution to include any 'change" - the origin of life, the origin of the earth, of the universe, of matter and energy? Because, other than in an extreme reductionist sort of way, there isn't, and most likely can't be, a single theory which explains "everything". Except for God. Thus, by stretching the definition of evolution to cover "everything in the known and unknowable universe", creationists position them selves to be able to say that science is inadequate, and that God is the only explanation capable of encompassing everything! The problem is that, at that point, the explanation is no longer scientific. It is untestable, it is faith, it is religion.

The materialistic approach of science (which creationists can't distinguish from Philosophical Naturalism) works perfectly well in explaining the diversity of life we see on earth via evolution and natural selection.

One might well ask, then, why Talk Origins spends so much time talking about abiogenesis, physics, astrophysics and cosmology. The answer is simple. Creationists are the ones who constantly try to drag those topics into discussions concerning biological evolution. Talk Origins has therefor very carefully defined each (as used by the very practioners of those subjects), shown that they do not relate to biological evolution, and thus deprived the creationists of their intentional obfuscations.

Fernandez's entire essay is a cry in the wilderness to regain that obfuscation. Without it, Creationists have almost no argument they can make. Note also how the essay takes a bit of time to denigrate those of faith who do accept evolution as the best explanation - a thinly veiled "No True Christian" logical fallacy.

Richard S. White
Originally appeared on Fundies Vs. Atheists, June 14th, 2005

Evolution -- Abiogenesis -- Origin of Life

 

[Jared Jammer]

The origin of life is the origin of the genetic code -- the programming language of life -- and of the machinery required to read and process that code. It was an enormous technological leap, one which defies a blind, naturalistic explanation.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why Darwinists would try to hard to dodge the question. Their beliefs are indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Valjean]

Au contraire, Jared. It's the creationists that propose magic. The ToE is all about mechanism.

"Goddidit" is an assertion of agency, not a description of mechanism. It doesn't explain anything. An action without mechanism would be magic, wouldn't it?

The ToE describes how. Creationism asserts who. Apples and oranges.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The origin of life is the origin of the genetic code -- the programming language of life -- and of the machinery required to read and process that code. It was an enormous technological leap, one which defies a blind, naturalistic explanation.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why Darwinists would try to hard to dodge the question. Their beliefs are indistinguishable from magic.

In what way?

 

[Yerda]

The origin of life is the origin of the genetic code -- the programming language of life -- and of the machinery required to read and process that code. It was an enormous technological leap, one which defies a blind, naturalistic explanation.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why Darwinists would try to hard to dodge the question. Their beliefs are indistinguishable from magic.

Who's dodging any questions?

 

[Salek Atesh]

To deny abiogenesis when you argue against creationists makes the scientific viewpoint look a lot worse than it really is. Anyone smart who thinks about evolution will come to the question of abiogenesis naturally. Where did we come from? Where did our ancestors come from? Where did their ancestors come from? Oh, it boils down to a single celled organism? Well, I guess that answers all my questions and I'll stop my investigation right there, no need to think about where those things came from, right? Does that make sense to you? **** no!

Biologists study abiogenesis. Some are in the department of biochemistry, but where are most? The evolutionary science department. In what journals do they publish? Evolutionary science journals. Which conferences do they attend? Evolutionary science conferences.

WHY? Because cells are believed to have formed out of spontaneous generation of order that is well known in physics (Micelles, etc.). Hereditary molecules are believed to come from inorganic materials like clay (RNA world hypothesis). The first inorganic molecule to crudely copy itself (we do observe a level of self replication at about the level of crudeness and inefficiency that we would expect in a prebiotic world, today. See prions), did so on accident, and the child molecules that were better at this went faster via natural selection. If you don't think inorganic molecules can replicate or pass on information, look up the propagation reactions of free radicals. Abiogenesis is very chemical in nature, but noble laymen who like to argue for us don't understand that modern evolution is equally chemical.

In the future, please do us a favor by admitting that you don't know enough chemistry or enough about abiogenesis in general to make arguments about this very relevant branch of evolutionary science, but point out to them that it does exist, that there are books on the subject, and maybe you can check one out yourself.

Logician here:
A is part of set C
B is part of set C

We cannot conclude from these that A = B

Evolution is a part of "Evolutionary Sciences"
Abiogenesis is part of "Evolutionary Sciences"

This does not mean Abiogenesis = Evolution

If Abiogenesis is true, it follows that Evolution is also true (since Abiogenesis builds off of Evolution)

But if-then statements can't be reverse-engineered. It does not mean that if Evolution is true, so is Abiogenesis.

 

[Sapiens]

The origin of life is the origin of the genetic code -- the programming language of life -- and of the machinery required to read and process that code. It was an enormous technological leap, one which defies a blind, naturalistic explanation.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why Darwinists would try to hard to dodge the question. Their beliefs are indistinguishable from magic.

No. Life did not begin with the genetic code, evolution as we now know it did.

No one is dodging anything, we recognize that there are two separate process, one of which flows into the next. We have evolution pretty well oinned down, but not abiogeneis ... what's the big deal? We may never define abiogeneis perfectly, way to many unknowns, but that's no reason to retreat in the the mindlessness of an appeal to ignorance, as you have been suggesting.

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis is part of "Evolutionary Sciences"

If Abiogenesis is true, it follows that Evolution is also true (since Abiogenesis builds off of Evolution)

Not really.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary science.

Because abiogenesis precedes evolution it cannot build off of evolution.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Not really.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary science.

Because abiogenesis precedes evolution it cannot build off of evolution.

Sorry, I meant the science for evolution is pretty much requisite for the science of modern abiogenesis (not medieval abiogenesis, but that's a whole different theory).

If species don't change over time, you'll have a hard time explaining how species came to be out of chemical self-replicating molecules.

And I was just accepting his claim Abiogenesis was part of evolutionary science to show that, even if that was the case, it is logically irrelevant as it does not show equivalence.

 

[Skwim]

Just so we're clear here; biological evolution has no more to do with abiogenesis than it has to do with the formation of the solar system. The process of abiogenesis, however it may have occurred, only concerns itself with the transformation of non-living matter, such as organic compounds, into life, at which point any further development would be a matter of evolution.

(DKS = dynamic kinetic stability)​

 

[ScottySatan]

ScottySatan

1. Evolution: How species change over time.
2. Abiogenesis: How life emerged.

What is confusing you about making a distinction between 1. and 2. .

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?