Abiogenesis - What's the big deal?

[Prometheus]

It is often said by Creationists that evolution is not a valid theory because life beginning from inorganic matter by chance is so improbable it may as well be impossible and thus have needed a creator.

Firstly, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life began, only what it does once it has started.

Secondly, even if abiogenesis is vastly improbable, which it may or may not be, it doesn't matter one whit. Life beginning at random is allowed to be incredibly improbable because it only needs to happen once. Even if life beginning was a one in a million billion trillion quadrillion chance, it still happened. If it hadn't, we wouldn't even be here discussing it.

Here's a good analogy I've heard. Take a new deck of cards, shuffle it up as well as you can then deal it out on the table. Now, take another new deck of cards, shuffle it up randomly and try to deal out the cards in the exact same order as the first was dealt. The chances of randomly shuffling the same order of cards again is mind-bogglingly improbable. Yet, somehow, it happened without difficulty with the first deck.

The cards in the deck of life only had to fall a certain way once, no matter how unlikely it was. It's not a big deal and there was no dealer.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect many people who oppose abiogenesis do so because they would prefer to believe in creation and not because abiogenesis is all that implausible.

 

[rocketman]

It is often said by Creationists that evolution is not a valid theory because life beginning from inorganic matter by chance is so improbable it may as well be impossible and thus have needed a creator.

Firstly, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life began, only what it does once it has started.

I have to admit that the title of this sub-forum has always puzzled me somewhat. It clearly says 'evolution vs creation' which, by definition, refers to all of evolution and all of creationism, both of which start at the birth of the universe. Somewhere along the way however, the title has come to mean 'biological evolution vs creationism'.

Funny that.

Anyway, there are vast tracts of science devoted to the cosmological initiation, galactic, stellar and planetary evolution and large parts of creationism that are focused on similar questions. If we take evolutionary science as a whole we must accept that abiogenesis is a missing section in the larger evolutionary curve. (If the focus was solely on biological evolution then fair enough, but who made that rule up anyway?) The story of evolution is at it's essence the interplay between atoms. Period. Some atoms have this property, some have that property. They do stuff together. Nowhere in that analysis do atoms make a distinction between biological or non-biological. It's just atoms doing their stuff. This is an important point, because if there is a knowledge-break in the sequence of atoms interacting, then we may have the sequence wrong. And in turn we may have other stuff wrong.

We certainly cannot say we have the abiogenesis part right because we don't yet know how that particular interaction worked/works - ie: we can't create 'life' yet, besides maybe abiogenesis as an accident (naturally occuring) is physically impossible, (which itself is a possibility given that the properties of atoms are finite).

It'd be nice to see people making clear in our OPs wether we mean Biological evolution or Universal evolution. Or change the name of the sub-forum.

Apologies if this suggestion has already come up previously.

 

[SoyLeche]

Secondly, even if abiogenesis is vastly improbable, which it may or may not be, it doesn't matter one whit. Life beginning at random is allowed to be incredibly improbable because it only needs to happen once. Even if life beginning was a one in a million billion trillion quadrillion chance, it still happened. If it hadn't, we wouldn't even be here discussing it.

There's gotta be a falacy or two in there. "Begging the question" and "False Dichotomy" come to mind.

I agree that the fact that it is improbable by no means indicates that it didn't happen, but there are other ways we could "be here discussing it" other than "it" happening.

That's all.

 

[Valjean]

Obviously it happened, whatever the degree of improbability. It's only a question of mechanism vs magic.

 

[JerryL]

I have to admit that the title of this sub-forum has always puzzled me somewhat. It clearly says 'evolution vs creation' which, by definition, refers to all of evolution and all of creationism, both of which start at the birth of the universe.

Really? When I look up "Theory of evolution" I see no mention of expanding timespace. I think you've invented a definition.

Anyway, there are vast tracts of science devoted to the cosmological initiation, galactic, stellar and planetary evolution and large parts of creationism that are focused on similar questions.

Creationism was also focused on a flat earth (false), the power of prayer (disproven) and any number of contrary and unsupported assertions. Good thing you don't hold it to nearly the standard you hold your straw-man of evolution.

 

[rocketman]

Really? When I look up "Theory of evolution" I see no mention of expanding timespace. I think you've invented a definition.

Popular general use of a term does not guarantee it's accuracy. Evolution is a term used by many scientists, not limited to those who study only biological evolution. If we specify 'biological evolution vs the equivalent section of creationism' then fine, but let's say so. If we say 'evolution vs creation' however, then why should the rest of the story be left out?

Actually, the argument that 'life is here therfore it doesn't matter how it started' is unscientific if the question is: did it start/change accidentally? (which is the overall question in forums like this) ...Because any break in the knowledge arc (eg: abiogenesis, there are many others) could be a place where unknown factors may have played a part. If such factors exist, they may possibly have influenced the sequence later on or earlier on. It need not be god-of-the-gaps for scientists, the opposite in fact, because they are looking for a scientific answer, which does not yet exist as far as abiogenesis goes. Sounds like debate material to me.

In a similar way to evolutionary biologists relying on the work of those from other scientific disciplines, so too does biological evolution itself rely on the other kinds of evolution that came before it, and indeed, overlap it.

The atoms do not differentiate the stages so why can't we debate the bigger picture? If we did, abiogenesis would be an interesting discussion point, because it's still a mystery, as are largely the beginnings of the environment in the first place. If all lifeforms evolved from a limited beginning as suggested, then any new information regarding their origin and the conditions at the time would have a big impact on our understanding of the early days of biological evolution, and potentially on the unfolding of life later, and indeed it does amongst scientists and creationists alike. The evolutionary epochs are all linked together. Either each event happened by accident (naturally occuring/changing) or it didn't. Focusing on one narrow area means the answer will be narrow. The more information we have, the better our answers. Presuppositions prove absolutely nothing.

So what definition did I make up? The highlighted words are links:

Galactic and Stellar evolution are two legitimate scientific terms.

Here is a good paper on it, from Yale's astronomy department.

Both NASA and ESA use the term 'planetary evolution'.

An example of how uni students are encouraged to consider galactic evolution as a biologist would.

On this page, the word evolution is mentioned a good 4 or 5 times, not to mention a tounge-in-cheek reference to galactic 'fossils'. It's impossible to read such things and not notice the similarities to biological evolution, or sense the overall arc of the evolution story for that matter.

The Planetary Society has no problem seeing a causal link between pre- and post- abiogenesis conditions.

And if that's not enough then this will be. I challenge you to read it.

To draw an imaginary line through abiogenesis is unscientific, imho. But that's not to say that we can't focus in on a specific area for debate, provided, (as all good debates should) that both sides understand the terms.

Creationism was also focused on a flat earth (false),

Meaningless in this debate. Bringing that up would be like me bringing up Darwin's mistakes, like racial superiority, and claiming that because of the history there that evolution can't be trusted, or saying that all evolutionists were racist, or some other meaningless assertion.

..the power of prayer (disproven)

Works for me. Of-course I'm patient, not greedy, and understand that not everything I want is good for me. (Plus I'm very humble too.)

Good thing you don't hold it to nearly the standard you hold your straw-man of evolution.

I hold everything to the same standard. Whether things pass or fail the standard is a whole other subject.

 

[Yerda]

Obviously it happened, whatever the degree of improbability. It's only a question of mechanism vs magic.

Yup. When it comes to it, there is no good reason for inventing 'supernatural causes' in any chain of events.

 

[Storm]

Obviously it happened, whatever the degree of improbability. It's only a question of mechanism vs magic.

Yup. When it comes to it, there is no good reason for inventing 'supernatural causes' in any chain of events.

"Magic" would be a mechanism, anyway. Personally, I do believe that one way or another, "God did it." I still want to figure out how, and I believe we can. Eventually.

The whole science vs. faith thing is a false and unnecessary conflict.

 

[Willamena]

It is often said by Creationists that evolution is not a valid theory because life beginning from inorganic matter by chance is so improbable it may as well be impossible and thus have needed a creator.

I don't see why it's a problem; it's equally improbable that inorganic matter is begat from life quite by chance. And yet it is.

 

[Druidus]

It is my belief that the chances of life arising from nonlife are relatively high. I believe that it arose once or more times on Earth, and many times throughout the universe.

Given the proper environment, like our early Earth, and given enough time, life will arise.