Abiogenesis and Evolution

[RedOne77]

First, I want to get one thing straight. This thread is not meant to be a thread about the validity of either, just the relation between the two in a scientific sense as well as their relationship as far as the evo-creo debate goes.

Often we hear from the evolution side that the two are completely different topics etc. While many creationists will claim that they are the same thing. Yet, isn't the truth somewhere in the middle?

As an analogy, take the three different disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. Each one is it's own field of study, and rightly so. But, what underlies biology? Chemistry. What underlies chemistry? Physics, and this is all to a point where it becomes very hard to distinguish one from the other. This gives rise to multidisciplinary studies such as biochemistry, nuclear chemistry, and biophysics.

Going back to the relation of evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution at its most basic is natural selection plus mutations. Abiogenesis is the study of how living things could arise via natural processes. This begs the question of 'what is life?' It isn't too hard to distinguish between a rock and bird; but what about viruses and certain bacterium? At what point could someone make a line where a pre-cell becomes a fully living cell that isn't arbitrary? I would think such a feat would be quite hard, if not impossible.

So how does abiogenesis propose we go from non-living chemicals to life? Assuming that we can get to self replicating polymers inside a lipid membrane, the answer is quite simply natural selection plus mutations - evolution. So how abiogenesis supposes we get living systems so they can evolve, is via a modified biological evolutionary system. It is ludicrous for evolutionists to claim that abiogeneisis is completely separate from biological evolution, afterall it uses the exact same principles and concepts that are at the heart of what evolution is in a scientific framework.

While it is possilbe to have a universe with (micro) evolution/adaptation and not abiogenesis. You cannot separate evolution from abiogenesis as it is an integral part of the model. Even Darwin understood that there was a very strong connection when he wrote about the first cells, and freely admited that he didn't know how they came about in the 'Origin of Species' which is about the systematical theory of evolution.

Frankly, I am tired of evolutionists telling creationists that they are two completely different topics when they overlap in key areas. I'm sure that there is plenty more to talk about, but right now it is 1am for me and I have school tomorrow. Peace y'all.

 

[Krok]

Frankly, I am tired of evolutionists telling creationists that they are two completely different topics when they overlap in key areas. I'm sure that there is plenty more to talk about, but right now it is 1am for me and I have school tomorrow. Peace y'all.

Frankly, Biologists, Physicists and Chemists are tired of creationists trying to impose their wishful thinking on science. The differences between abiogenesis and ToE were figured out years ago. Creationists have 150 years of catching up to do. Key-words are 'arisen' in abiogenesis and 'already living things' in evolution.

From Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen."
A little bit of reading actually helps. See, easy. :beach:

 

[Gunfingers]

It's like this.

Evolutionary theory is fairly specific. It covers specifically the way that genes mutate and create new expressed things and etc.

Abiogenesis was happening millions of years before evolution started. The processes that took us from amino acids to quasi-living things to actual life may have been similar to evolution, but they weren't evolution.

More to the point, even if we could go back billions of years and find out that rather than abiogenesis, God actually began life by jerking off into the primordial soup evolution would still be true.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution does not arise from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis on the initial formation of life. Life could have arisen in other ways. From God's sneeze to exogenesis. While it has been shown that abiogenesis is a good possibility, it is not a well established scientific theory backed by overwhelming empirical evidence such as the ToE is.

 

[fantome profane]

Abiogeneis is related to the theory of evolution in the same way that theories concerning the origin of electrons are related to electrical science. Think about it. We know how electrons behave, we can study and use electricity, there are several scientific laws concerning the behaviour of electricity that make up what we call electrical theory. But none of that says anything at all about the origin of electrons. Even if we had no idea of how electrons originated, ohm’s law would still apply.

The same reasoning applies to the theory of evolution. We know how living organisms replicate and are subject to natural selection. Even if we had absolutely no theories on how living organisms originated the theory of evolution would still describe the way they develop and diversify. Just like ohm’s law describes the behaviour of electrons without any idea of how electrons originated.

The other point I would like to make is that even most creationists will admit that there was a time when there was no biological life on this planet. So logically there was a point where life had to originate. Even if we don’t know how it happened obviously it happened. If you wish to say that “God” was responsible that is fine. I won’t argue that point. But the point is that it happened. As far as the theory of evolution it makes no difference how that life originated.

The idea put forth by some creationists that the theory of evolution is invalidated because if we don’t know exactly how life originated is just illogical. As I said ohm’s law is not invalidated if you can’t explain the origin of electrons. If you want to say “Jesus created electrons”, fine. But ohm’s law still applies.

 

[meogi]

Yet, isn't the truth somewhere in the middle?

Very rarely.

I would think such a feat would be quite hard, if not impossible.

You think wrong.

So how does abiogenesis propose we go from non-living chemicals to life?

Entropy. Any more words and I start spending too much energy to convince you.

Frankly, I am tired of evolutionists telling creationists that they are two completely different topics when they overlap in key areas.

Frankly, I'm tired of creationists telling anyone that their belief in science is absurd. What say you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Frankly, I am tired of evolutionists telling creationists that they are two completely different topics when they overlap in key areas.

What areas?

The theory of evolution says, effectively, "given life, here's how it changes over time." It says nothing about how that life arose.

The only thing that evolution has to say on the subject is that it assumes that life exists. It doesn't assume anything about how it came to exist.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is there anything more repulsive and frightening to a fundamentalist, than the idea that God might not actually control every last thing in the universe?

 

[JustWondering2]

Or that the little black book they hold so dear and believe every word of as 100% true could be wrong in a few places. Or if fact be just the word of men and not literally the word of God.

 

[RedOne77]

The differences between abiogenesis and ToE were figured out years ago. Creationists have 150 years of catching up to do. Key-words are 'arisen' in abiogenesis and 'already living things' in evolution.

From Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen."
A little bit of reading actually helps. See, easy. :beach:

You're missing the point. It isn't that they are the same thing, rather they are interconnected to the point that the separation of the two by evolutionists on this forum (and most others as well) is unfounded. I'm not making the mistake of saying they are the same, but that because both rely on natural selection and mutations with the understanding that 'what life is' is very gray when you get down to it, such a separation of the two made by evos when talking on this forum (and again others as well, as I think it is a general problem) makes it look like you are arguing to argue, not that you want a well-founded discussion.

Gunfingers
Abiogenesis was happening millions of years before evolution started. The processes that took us from amino acids to quasi-living things to actual life may have been similar to evolution, but they weren't evolution.

All the major mechanics of evolution is there - just because we decide that X is alive (which is a very gray, and arbitrary, area) or not seems to overlook the actual processes taken. Evolution at it's most basic is changes in allele frequency over time; chemical evolution has the same thing once you have self replicating polymers. The only difference is that we (humans) decide that it is not living until it passes through some gray area to become a living cell.

Tumbleweed
Evolution does not arise from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis on the initial formation of life. Life could have arisen in other ways. From God's sneeze to exogenesis. While it has been shown that abiogenesis is a good possibility, it is not a well established scientific theory backed by overwhelming empirical evidence such as the ToE is.

I use "abiogenesis" somewhat loose to the meaning of "a hypothesis" as it is really a field with multiple hypotheses, yet all (or most; at least all the major ones) have some form of natural selection and mutations. And if abiogenesis is correct, than evolution came out of the process of abiogenesis, so indirectly evolution could have arisen from abiogenesis. It is also my guess that most evos here do believe in abiogenesis.

fantôme profane
The other point I would like to make is that even most creationists will admit that there was a time when there was no biological life on this planet. So logically there was a point where life had to originate. Even if we don’t know how it happened obviously it happened. If you wish to say that “God” was responsible that is fine. I won’t argue that point. But the point is that it happened. As far as the theory of evolution it makes no difference how that life originated.

The idea put forth by some creationists that the theory of evolution is invalidated because if we don’t know exactly how life originated is just illogical. As I said ohm’s law is not invalidated if you can’t explain the origin of electrons. If you want to say “Jesus created electrons”, fine. But ohm’s law still applies.

Again, this thread isn't about the validity of either, there are other threads for that, and if not I'm sure you could make one. I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not falsifying or not falsifying one of these models will impact the overall validity of the other's basic structure.

One of the ideas of evolution is that populations are limited by their past evolutionary history. For example, we have two bones in our forearm (radius and ulna) and often times when people fall they will break one of those two bones as they try to break their fall. It would be more beneficial for us to have one, thicker bone that wouldn't break so easily, but we are supposedly bound by our evolutionary past where this radius/ulna duo was prominent for so long it can't be mutated out so easily. So I somewhat disagree, perhaps on semantics, that whether or not abiogenesis is wrong or right has no bareing on the ToE - Olhm's law is not dependent on how the electron got there, but if the electron's properties were different depending on how it got there, than it is possible that Olhm's law would be different. This is a bit off-topic, but if the speed of light was different, the properties of electrons would be different as well, and there is evidence that the speed of light has changed (specifically looking at the poportion of lines in the specrum of close stellar objects to much further stellar objects).

Me:I would think such a feat (determining life from non-life) would be quite hard, if not impossible.

Meogi: You think wrong.

Then think again. While the majority opinion so far is that viruses are not alive, it isn't a very well supported idea, mainly baised on tradition and the classical view of life which is falling out of favor. Scientists can't even give us a full definition of life, the best they can really do is just give a list of what life can do with no consensus of what all is in that list. Plus, there is some evidence that viruses at one point had a lot more in common with baceria (making them 'alive'), but lost it over time as it was more beneficial for them to live off of hosts like they do now. They are so many gray areas that to have a full 100% proof definition of life would be a great achievement of science.

Entropy. Any more words and I start spending too much energy to convince you.

Well that's too bad. I'm curious as to your explanation. Anyone else want to fill in?

Frankly, I'm tired of creationists telling anyone that their belief in science is absurd. What say you?

I don't recall saying that anyone's belief in science is absurd, although I'm sure there are many creationists that have done so on many occasions.

9-10ths_Penguin
What areas?

The theory of evolution says, effectively, "given life, here's how it changes over time." It says nothing about how that life arose.

The only thing that evolution has to say on the subject is that it assumes that life exists. It doesn't assume anything about how it came to exist.

My whole point is that they use very similar mechanisms (and for other things I've already stated), so saying that they are two completely different subjects is a misnomer - no matter what anyone thinks about the validity of either.

It is sort of like this:
Creo: Is evolution done through natural selection and mutations?
Evo: Yes, those are the two most important concepts in evolution, and it summerized the entire theory.
Creo: Doesn't abiogenesis involve natural selection and mutations as well to create the life we see today that is cabable of evolution?
Evo: Yes, the pre-cells that had beneficial mutations were selected by nature and over time the pre-cells eventually became life and through natural selection and mutations we got the diversity we see today.
Creo: Doesn't that mean that evolution and abiogenesis are very much related to each other, even though they tackle two different questions?
Evo: NO! How ignorant can you be? They are two completely different things, they have nothing to do with each other!

I think many of the learned evolutionists understand the connections, but it isn't showing through the forums when they talk to creationists. I don't know if it is just arguing for the sake of arguing; the're all conditioned to reject any point made by a creationist that isn't of the caliber of 1+1=2. Or what. I would like to have a discussion on the issue, which is why I started this thread, but I guess I'll see where it goes from here...

The Voice of Reason
Is there anything more repulsive and frightening to a fundamentalist, than the idea that God might not actually control every last thing in the universe?

I'm not sure, deciding what frightens me most is not something I've ever been good at. But I would think that many theists would find such thinking as unthinkable, fundamentalist or not. You don't need to be a fundamentalist to believe that everything is created, sustained, and under the authority of God. And as I'm sure you are aware, many people view God as existence, so God is all and controls all, although such 'control' is meant differently than what I think you're reffering to.

 

[fantome profane]

Again, this thread isn't about the validity of either, there are other threads for that, and if not I'm sure you could make one. I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not falsifying or not falsifying one of these models will impact the overall validity of the other's basic structure.

One of the ideas of evolution is that populations are limited by their past evolutionary history. For example, we have two bones in our forearm (radius and ulna) and often times when people fall they will break one of those two bones as they try to break their fall. It would be more beneficial for us to have one, thicker bone that wouldn't break so easily, but we are supposedly bound by our evolutionary past where this radius/ulna duo was prominent for so long it can't be mutated out so easily. So I somewhat disagree, perhaps on semantics, that whether or not abiogenesis is wrong or right has no bareing on the ToE - Olhm's law is not dependent on how the electron got there, but if the electron's properties were different depending on how it got there, than it is possible that Olhm's law would be different. This is a bit off-topic, but if the speed of light was different, the properties of electrons would be different as well, and there is evidence that the speed of light has changed (specifically looking at the poportion of lines in the specrum of close stellar objects to much further stellar objects).

An interesting and valid point. You are saying that just as we are stuck with certain features due to our evolutionary path we may also be stuck with certain biochemical aspects due to the specific mechanism of abiogenesis that occurred. If this is your point it is a valid one.

But although you have stated that this thread is not about the validity of abiogenesis or evolution, you did couch the topic within the framework of the evo/creo debate. If there is a link between our current biochemistry (and therefore our evolutionary history) and abiogenesis then that would only be further evidence of evolution. I am not really sure where this fits within the debate, but it is certainly not “somewhere in the middle”.

 

[Gunfingers]

All the major mechanics of evolution is there - just because we decide that X is alive (which is a very gray, and arbitrary, area) or not seems to overlook the actual processes taken. Evolution at it's most basic is changes in allele frequency over time; chemical evolution has the same thing once you have self replicating polymers. The only difference is that we (humans) decide that it is not living until it passes through some gray area to become a living cell.

It's not just a matter of deciding what is and is not life, it's a matter of what is using evolutionary processes. Before DNA there was no evolution, not as we know Evolutionary Theory, anyway. Sure, things were changing, but not in any way explained by Evolutionary Theory. Thus they are separate ideas, and disproving one would not disprove the other.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution does not arise from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis on the initial formation of life. Life could have arisen in other ways. From God's sneeze to exogenesis. While it has been shown that abiogenesis is a good possibility, it is not a well established scientific theory backed by overwhelming empirical evidence such as the ToE is.

I use "abiogenesis" somewhat loose to the meaning of "a hypothesis" as it is really a field with multiple hypotheses, yet all (or most; at least all the major ones) have some form of natural selection and mutations. And if abiogenesis is correct, than evolution came out of the process of abiogenesis, so indirectly evolution could have arisen from abiogenesis. It is also my guess that most evos here do believe in abiogenesis.

Understood. However, since there is no verifiable theory of abiogenesis as of yet, and as most hypotheses of abiogenesis are based on biochemical reactions dependent on largely unknown conditions, it cannot be stated as an accepted scientific fact that abiogenesis occurred.
On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is backed by a plethora of empirical evidence. Evolution itself is an accepted scientific fact. The ToE does not in any way rely on abiogenesis, it only relies on the existence of the initial life forms, no matter where they came from. When Creationist try to bring the argument of "well you guys think life arose spontaneously from rocks" into a discussion about the ToE, this argument can be justifiably dismissed as the ToE does not 'care' where those first life forms came from, and stands alone as a thoroughly tested and verified scientific theory.

 

[JustWondering2]

I'd like to here what PW has to say about this! BTW I'm glad to hear you (PW) had a good vacation and welcome back to RF. It's nice to have an expert (and learned) persons input on subjects such as this!

To me, and I'm certainly no expert on the subjects, from what I've learned about Abiogenesis and Evolution the two seem to have some processes in common. But I agree with the Electron/Ohm's Law analogy in that where ever the electron came from or how it came into being (Big Bang) has nothing to do with describing how it behaves today as Ohm's Law does. The two exist independent of each other, even if they have similarities in how they operate is interesting but that doesn't mean they are the same process.

 

[painted wolf]

Abiogenesis is a very specific field meant to address a specific issue.
Evolution is defined in biology as the change in allele frequencies over time.

Yes, there can be some overlap, but frankly evolution does not depend on abiogenesis or vice-versa. Evolution needs a molecule of inheritance to work... and abiogenesis seeks to address how that molecule chemically formed.

I also agree with the Electron/Ohm's Law analogy. Honestly we didn't get into abiogenesis in any detail in any of my biology classes. We talked very briefly about what it was and some of the historical work into it... but it's such a new area of research there simply isn't a lot to discuss definitively yet. I would say we spent less than half a class on the subject.

Perhaps they went into it more in depth in the organic chemistry classes but I my track was oraganismal biology.

wa:do

 

[JustWondering2]

Thanks Painted Wolf for your comment! As I said it's nice to have someone commenting here that actually knows something about the subject.

 

[Noaidi]

I think abiogenesis is within the realm of chemistry, rather than biology. It's interesting to contemplate, though, how those first organic molecules 'sparked' into life. How did we go from inert molecule assemblages to cells with the capacity to move, reproduce, respire etc?

 

[painted wolf]

It's amazing what chemistry can do

wa:do

 

[Noaidi]

It's amazing what chemistry can do

wa:do

As much as it pains me, I have to agree. I hated chemistry at university!

 

[painted wolf]

As much as it pains me, I have to agree. I hated chemistry at university!

LoL.. me too! It killed my GPA . :bonk:

wa:do