Abiogenesis and Evolution

[The Voice of Reason]

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

Are you trying to insinuate that Painted Wolf is somehow more qualified to speak on the subject of evolution than Mr. 151?

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's amazing what chemistry can do

wa:do

I went flying today, with the former Superintendent of our school system, who was raised as the son of a Southern Baptist minister.

When we got back on the ground and had tied the plane down, we watched a small jet taxi to the far end of the runway, turn, and take off.

He looked at me, and said "Isn't it amazing, what mankind has learned through science?" I asked him which was more amazing to him - science or religion. He didn't even hesitate, when he said "with science, we learn - with religion, we simply believe".

It was a good day.

 

[gnostic]

You are the one missing the points, RedOne77...with regards to the 2 science.

Biologist, especially those evolutionist biologists, don't needs to know anything about abiogenesis whatsoever.

Also, abiogenesis is still a working hypothesis - under development and untested. Evolutionary science has many evidences that have validated Darwin's theory that deal with "changes", and not how life arose from something lifeless.

These changes are simply "created"; they have everything do with generation being changed, due to genetic and environmental influences.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Abiogenesis can be considered the theory of how life arose on Earth out of "inanimate" matter...

My suggestion: Matter is not inanimate. It changes form, has an action/reaction...it is very "animate".

Abiogenesis could also be described as the theory of how life on earth arose out of non-living matter...

My suggestion: There is no life. There are no living things. All that is is simply energy. Life and death are illusions/perceptions. If there is no life, only energy changing form, then there is no death, only energy changing form. There is however consciousness/spirit...the animating principal. That force (in my opinion) by which energy itself "originates and exists". There is nothing "supernatural" or "divine" about it.

 

[rusra02]

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:

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's way of dodging the all important question: How did life begin? If you can't explain it, ignore it or call it something else....
Still, the question hangs like a huge shadow over the ToE, unanswerable by those who claim to be in the know.

 

[Noaidi]

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's way of dodging the all important question: How did life begin? If you can't explain it, ignore it or call it something else....

Not necessarily. There is research being undertaken on abiogenesis. Just because we don't know how something happened, it doesn't mean we are 'dodging the question'. Far from it - the whole purpose of science is to explore what we currently don't know. Unlike some systems of thought, science admits to gaps in our knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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...

Here's the distinction: ask yourself whether what you're talking about (whether it's existing life, "pre-cells", inanimate matter, or something else) can reproduce. If it can, then it's a form of life... it's something that only existed after abiogenesis. If it can't reproduce, then it doesn't have inheritance, so it's not subject to evolution.

That's why people say that they're separate concepts.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How did life begin?

Hope you don't mind...I'd like to give you my simple non-scientific (but I think logical) way of explaining how so-called "life" began on Earth.

Here it is...
Basically, the way I see it, all energy/matter is animate.... It has an action/reaction, changes form, etc... Even such a simple thing as a rock has an action/reaction and the ability to change form. It is my thought that the consciousness that we as humans experience is exactly that... action and reaction, just as all energy has. The only thing that sets humans apart from a rock is that our bodily systems have evolved in such a way that what was once very simple actions/reactions of energy turned into very complex actions/reactions like found in our nervous system/brains. Basically what we call "life" appeared on Earth because energy itself "evolved", changed form. Those simple actions/reactions evolved into awareness, instinct, etc,... Just because scientists can't pinpoint the exact time or place it happened, doesn't mean that it can't be explained in some way. Energy changed form...simple as that.

On a side note...biological reproduction is simply energy changing form also. The energy was already present and in my opinion the consciousness/spirit, just formed a new look/body. If energy can't be created, then why do people see reproduction like it's some sort of "creation" as in "creating life"? It's not in my opinion. We don't create anything...we don't create "new" consciousness when we reproduce, nor do we create consciousness in our brains. The consciousness/spirit is already present in all things, all matter, it just changes physical form...with our help of course.

 

[painted wolf]

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's way of dodging the all important question: How did life begin?

Hardly... we just understand the theory of evolution doesn't cover that question. It covers how living things change over time.
The fact that creationists don't understand that and frankly refuse to understand that, doesn't change that fact.

If you can't explain it, ignore it or call it something else....

It's hardly ignored, it has it's own field of research devoted to it! Just because it's not called evolution doesn't mean it's being ignored.
That's like complaining that Hydrology can't account for the formation of mountains!

Still, the question hangs like a huge shadow over the ToE, unanswerable by those who claim to be in the know.

LoL :biglaugh:
The theory of evolution would still be correct no matter how life started. IMHO it's pathetic how desperate creationists are to clutch to any feeble shred of controversy to inflate their sense of relevance.

It's just as sad as the "evolution can't account for the origin of the universe!" canard.

Like I said there is some minor overlap... as soon as you have a self replicating molecule of inheritance, evolution can being to act on it.... but evolution has nothing to do with how that molecule forms in the first place.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.... not the biochemical formation of macromolecules in an inorganic setting.

I'm sorry rusra02... but in this case your objections are ill-founded.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Sorry about all the spelling errors in my last post; the spellchecker went down and I can't spell with out it. I think everything is readable, if not just let me know and I'll edit it.

It may take a while, but I will get to all of your responses eventually.

Here's the distinction: ask yourself whether what you're talking about (whether it's existing life, "pre-cells", inanimate matter, or something else) can reproduce. If it can, then it's a form of life... it's something that only existed after abiogenesis. If it can't reproduce, then it doesn't have inheritance, so it's not subject to evolution.

That's why people say that they're separate concepts.

The problem comes when things that can reproduce via inherited informational molecules (i.e. DNA/RNA) that are not considered alive and part of the abiogenesis process. This is why I say life, when you get down to it, has a lot of gray areas, and why the two are not as separate as many evolutionists claim it is. Just look at viruses, they have RNA, they replicate, mutate, and change all the time but are not considered alive. Is 'biological' evolution happening with viruses, or is it just replicating chemicals that just has many properties of life?

I would be happy if biological evolution was more inclusive to changing pre-cells that 'evolve', even if we don't call it life at that stage. However, that is just not how things work.

 

[painted wolf]

Life absolutely has some grey areas... Viruses require living cells to replicate... thus they evolve, despite the fact that they are not alive per say.

What is really interesting is the hypothesis that viruses are secondarily simplified parasites. Most parasites loose many features found in free-living relatives. Viruses may have done something similar.

Biological evolution is totally inclusive of viruses...

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

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.

Yes. I also think that because of this, while falsifying one or the other has no direct implication to the validity of the other, they are not exactly separate to one another.

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”.

I'm not saying somewhere between creationism and evolutionism, but the attitudes about the subject between the two camps. Generalizing, evos say that they are two completely separate things, creos say they are inseparable. I think that a middle approach is the correct way, although I'm not sure exactly how intertwined they are.

Also, you brought up a valid point about our biochemical past being evidence for evolution. One thing I don't like about evo tactics is they use certain abiogenesis facts, like lipids dumped into an aqueous solution make a pospholipid bi-layer there is your primitive cell membrane, but writting off anything a creo presents just because it deals with abiogenesis, regardless of who is correct without a real discussion. I can't say that I've witnessed it here, as I come and go, but on other sites (and in person discussions/debates) I've seen it.

 

[RedOne77]

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.

Before DNA you could have RNA that could replicate, mutate, and change the organism. Same with things that have other informational molecules like PNA, which may have been a precursor for RNA and eventually DNA.

I think the problem with defining evolution as having "DNA", is the same problem as defining life as having carbon. Instead of carbon you could have silicon based organisms. Granted it is not a proficient, but as an evo you should know that life doesn't go with what's best, rather with what works; as long as it works it will get by. Same with DNA, while RNA or PNA might not be as proficient, if it does work why limit 'evolution' to only DNA?

 

[Copernicus]

RedOne77, part of the problem may be that the word "evolution" means different things in different contexts. As a process, it does not only apply to life forms, but to inanimate self-replicating processes. That is why we can model it and test it with computer programs. In that sense, it is reasonable to speculate that abiogenesis occurred by the same evolutionary mechanism. Let's call this sense the "process" sense. There is not doubt about the "process" sense, because it is a mathematically verifiable fact.

Another sense of "evolution" is that it describes the mechanisms and actual history by which DNA-based life forms have evolved. Let's call this sense the "story" sense. The story of evolution depends on evidence from the fossil record, observations of life in nature, the structure of living cells and the genetic mechanism by which they replicate, etc. In that sense, abiogenesis is excluded from evolution theory. We can make hypotheses and theories about what brought it about, and we may be able to test those hypotheses and theories. The recent creation of "synthetic DNA" is a step in that direction. The further exploration of Titan, a planet with very complex biochemical processes, may give us greater insights into how abiogenesis might have come about. But we do not yet have the same kind of overwhelming positive evidence for abiogenesis that we do for the "story of evolution" on Earth.

 

[painted wolf]

The definition of life doesn't limit it to just DNA... :no:

What keeps viruses from being alive is they are not self-reproductive, they do not engage in homeostasis or have metabolism.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

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.

Agreed. I also think that because of the uncertainty from academia, and the general level of difficulty to understand it (I personally think you need a strong understanding of evolution to really begin to understand abiogenesis), many evos take the easy 'it's not part of the ToE' statement when asked much about abiogenesis.

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.

I'm saddened to see such arguments from creationists; I've never been fond of straw-men.

JustWondering2

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.

I disagree; they (electron/Ohm) exist independent in their field of study, but the electron's properties are dependent on how they got there and other properties (like the speed of light).

I think the processes in abiogenesis and evolution are nearly identical; although with evolution you have emergent properties with 'higher' life forms. If chemical evolution is correct, than the first stages were most likely just chemical interactions - organic molecules forming, self assemblages of primitive organelles etc. But once you get a replicating polymer (say RNA for simplicity), you now have inheritance, mutations, more and less fit 'organisms' which natural selection can then work with, and from then on I think the process is essentially the same.

Just like PW started a thread about the supposed transition between fish and tetrapods, and how it becomes nearly impossible to tell where the line is and what all goes where, the same with what is life in terms of chemical and biological evolution - there is no difference, only perceived differences because we attach an arbitrary "life" label to one of them.

 

[painted wolf]

Just like PW started a thread about the supposed transition between fish and tetrapods, and how it becomes nearly impossible to tell where the line is and what all goes where, the same with what is life in terms of chemical and biological evolution - there is no difference, only perceived differences because we attach an arbitrary "life" label to one of them.

Except that life's definition isn't entirely arbitrary.... chemical "evolution" is not the same.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

You are the one missing the points, RedOne77...with regards to the 2 science.

Care to elaborate?

Biologist, especially those evolutionist biologists, don't needs to know anything about abiogenesis whatsoever.

I fundamentally disagree. If abiogenesis is correct, how it happened would most certainly have lasting impacts on the first organisms function, structure and biochemistry - even their DNA! You know that "biologists" recently put Archaea into its own domain separate from bacteria because of DNA analysis of their genomes suggest that they split off so early it may have been before it was 'alive', and even others have suggested that Archaea never were even on the same evolutionary tree as bacteria and euckaryots.

I know PW said that she got very little information about abiogenesis in her classes, but I do think that it is going to change, it's only a matter of when. Just as understanding the basics of cells is essential to understanding basic biology today, or as there's a revolution in the medical field to train future MDs in evolution, I think learning a little about abiogenesis will become part of the core cirriculum to aspiring biology students.

Also, abiogenesis is still a working hypothesis - under development and untested. Evolutionary science has many evidences that have validated Darwin's theory that deal with "changes", and not how life arose from something lifeless.

These changes are simply "created"; they have everything do with generation being changed, due to genetic and environmental influences.

"Due to genetic and environmental influences" is the key part. Both biological and chemical evolution deals with that.

 

[RedOne77]

Except that life's definition isn't entirely arbitrary.... chemical "evolution" is not the same.

wa:do

It's not entirely arbitrary, but "life" is a human concept in science. "Chemical evolution" is just another name for "abiogenesis" - unless you want to talk about fusion in stars. Which I'd be happy to participate, just it's a little off topic here.

 

[painted wolf]

It's not entirely arbitrary, but "life" is a human concept in science.

So is planet.... so what? If anything life is more defined than planet is.

"Chemical evolution" is just another name for "abiogenesis" - unless you want to talk about fusion in stars. Which I'd be happy to participate, just it's a little off topic here.

you brought it up.

wa:do