What is the origin of life according to ToE?

[Gunfingers]

Not entirely. Prior to the advent of genetic reproduction there was no evolution. There may have been processes similar to evolution, but those processes were not covered by evolutionary theory. Because things didn't work quite the same way the phylogenetic tree likely wouldn't have looked quite the same as it does now. It's a subtle distinction, and to laypersons like you and I it may seem trivial or even unnecessary, but to the scientists who deal in the respective fields the distinction is important.

[Krok]

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

Evolution is the process by which the first prototype organism came to be,...

No, The ToE deals with what happened after the first organism came to be. Not before.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

... where only inorganic materials existed before.

That's not part of ToE. it's called abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

When you read a paper on abiogenesis, it's almost entirely about evolution by natural selection, only applied to non-living stuff.

It's about non-organic stuff. The ToE is not involved. The moment an organism passes on it's genes, then it becomes part of ToE.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

It's the beginning of evolution, .....

No, that's about the beginning of life. The ToE follows after that.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

...the beginning of our story, and an enormous part of who we are.

It still is not about the ToE.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

...If you accept that we're all twigs on a phylogenetic tree,.....

With the first common ancestor at it's base.

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

... then abiogenesis was the very first step at the base of the trunk.

No, the first step of the ToE involves the first organic organisms who could pass on their genes.
The first step in the formation of the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup, where we find the first prokaryotic fossils, is not included. The rocks are not part of ToE. The fossils of living organisms, found in those inorganic rocks, are included.

[ScottySatan]

Originally Posted by Gunfingers

Prior to the advent of genetic reproduction there was no evolution.

Darwin didn't know what genes were when he made his theory. but his idea still worked because modern molecular genetics was not necessary. DNA-encoded genes are not a required part of evolution. RNA genomes are subject to evolution. Transmission of hereditary information form one generation to the next by epigenetics is also subject to evolution by natural selection.

Transmission of heredity by biopolymers that predate DNA are also subject to evolution by natural selection. They evolved to become DNA because DNA works better.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by DebaterSlater

I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?

This is actually a separate question from evolution.

Evolution is the question of how we got the biodiversity we see today. (and the questions that follow from that: ie, why do we have sex, how does inheritance work)

Once you ask where the "first living thing" came from you are asking a very different question. Indeed, the first living things don't have to evolve and likely didn't. Now once you get inheritance with modification and differential fitness then you get evolution.

But just to get a self replicating bio-molecule is question of chemistry.

wa:do

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

Darwin didn't know what genes were when he made his theory. but his idea still worked because modern molecular genetics was not necessary. DNA-encoded genes are not a required part of evolution. RNA genomes are subject to evolution. Transmission of hereditary information form one generation to the next by epigenetics is also subject to evolution by natural selection.

Transmission of heredity by biopolymers that predate DNA are also subject to evolution by natural selection. They evolved to become DNA because DNA works better.

True, but the chemistry that produced the first replicating bio-molecules was not driven by evolution... only which of those molecules was able to out compete the others.

wa:do

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

Evolution is the process by which the first prototype organism came to be, where only inorganic materials existed before. When you read a paper on abiogenesis, it's almost entirely about evolution by natural selection, only applied to non-living stuff. It's the beginning of evolution, the beginning of our story, and an enormous part of who we are.

If you accept that we're all twigs on a phylogenetic tree, then abiogenesis was the very first step at the base of the trunk.

You've now had three people explain it to you, including our resident biologist.
Can you now please accept that TOE is not about the origin of life?
Again: that is not what it's for.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to discuss Abiogenesis, we can do that, and it might even be an interesting discussion, but just be aware that we are not then discussing TOE.

[Kilgore Trout]

oh the athiests say evilution isn't the same as abiogenises but what do they think a rock gave birth to an amoeba or something? HAHAHA i just disapproved evilution right there, try to debate me you cant

[ScottySatan]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

only which of those molecules was able to out compete the others.

wa:do

That is natural selection.

[Jose Fly]

Regarding the origins of life, it's a fascinating field of study with multiple hypotheses, some more evidenced than others. Right now, I think the most likely scenario is the formation of simple proto-cells, aided by catalytic clays. The lipid layers are also semi-permeable and allow the basic building blocks of RNA to pass through. Interestingly, the same clays also catalyze the formation of RNA strands. Thus, eventually it's possible to have a self-replicating RNA inside of a primitive "cell". Once you have that, it's been shown that natural selection plays a role in selecting for the most efficient replicators. And my understanding is that going from RNA to DNA is fairly easy.

Here are some links I've accumulated over the years. Some are a bit out of date, but informative nonetheless.


Small RNA can do translation

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme

The latest (on the verge of life from scratch)

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

What we know

What critics of critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack - The Panda's Thumb

Evolution of triplet code

http://www.jbsdonline.com/index.cfm?...2377&do=detail

Welcome to the Genome Diversity Center

Creation of self-replicating molecules capable of adaptation

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Lab molecules mimic life

Self-sustained RNA replication

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Creation of self-replicating molecules that are “handed” (with many links inside)

NAI: News Stories

Amino acids thermodynamically favored

[0904.0402] A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code



Amino acids formed in comet-like conditions

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020330/fob1.asp

Large organic molecules found in space

Interstellar Chemistry Gets More Complex With New Charged-Molecule Discovery

Organic chemistry in young planet forming discs

Organic Molecules and Water in the Planet Formation Region of Young Circumstellar Disks

Carl Zimmer article on abiogenesis research

CarlZimmer.com: Articles

(more recent)

Science Magazine: Sign In

Darwinian evolution in RNA protocells (PDF)

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szos...et_al_2004.pdf

(Science article for above)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...305/5689/1474/

DNA replication initiator same in all three domains of life

Research News:

RNA abilities

Something for You RNA World Enthusiasts : Transcription and Translation

Formation of amino acids in hydrothermal vent conditions

α-Hydroxy and α-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions

Replication of Urey-Miller experiments with more apt conditions

The Panda's Thumb: Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

One step in pre-RNA to RNA

In The Prebiotic Kitchen | The Loom | Discover Magazine

(paper for above)

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions : Abstract : Nature

[Amill]

Originally Posted by ScottySatan

abiogenesis is an evolutionary model. nothing more, nothing less. I explained why, and provided references to back up my claims. To simply contradict me without rebuttal of the evidence at this point is a non-argument.

It really comes down to what definitions of evolution we're using. If you define evolution as change resulting from various natural mechanisms, then sure you could define abiogenesis as evolution. But you could also lump in a whole lot of other stuff. Just because abiogenesis shared some form of natural selection doesn't mean it's a part of the Theory of Evolution. A sort of important aspect of Evolution is descent with modification. You want to explain how abiogenesis involves genetic inheritance?