1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the origin of life according to ToE?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Debater Slayer, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. Debater Slayer

    Debater Slayer Administrator Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,439
    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?
     
  2. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    It's difficult to define life. There is no universally accepted definition. I define life as an open system of less entropy than its environment, which must consume outside energy tomaintain itself. It must reproduce. It must react to changes in the environment.

    Our first common ancestor was not alive. It was an evolving biopolymer.
     
  3. Debater Slayer

    Debater Slayer Administrator Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,439
    That wasn't my question though; I asked about the origin of life (i.e. living organisms), not the definition.

    Did it evolve randomly or systematically?
     
  4. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    The TOE does not deal with the origin of life at all. The TOE deals with the origin of species and is a biological theory.

    Current evidence (through the fossil record, etc) indicates that the last common cellular ancestor was a form of prokaryotic cells found in very old rocks in Greenland, Australia and South Africa.

    The science dealing with the origin of life is called abiogenesis and is studied in the science of chemistry. The ToE doesn't deal with it at all.

    There is an overlap though, this overlap is dealt with in subjects such as biochemistry, but the ToE is not involved.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  5. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    Abiogenesis is a branch of evolutionary science. Abiogenesis is absolutely dependent on evolutionary science. The theory of evolution does not go away if we can't explain how life originated, but the story of our evolutionary history will never be complete without it. Creationists are quite right to include abiogenesis when criticising the theory of evolution.
     
  6. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    Certainly not. It is a branch of...abiogenesis. From Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

    From Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life :
    Evolutionary science is a branch of biology, hence the science of evolutionary biology. From Evolutionary biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
    From Introduction to Evolutionary Biology :
    It doesn’t matter how many times people like creationists try to change the scientific definition of the ToE, they still deceive people by telling porkies. Their lies won't change the ToE. Their lies won't change abiogenesis.
    Abiogenesis is completely dependant on chemicals. Not on the ToE.
    Exactly. It doesn't matter how life originated, it won't change the ToE at all. The reason is that the ToE is not related to the origin of life. The explanation of how life originated will not change the Theory of Evolution at all. Even if The Pink Unicorn breathed fire to create the first life, the Theory of Evolution will stay exactly the same.
    Our evolutionary history will never be complete, seeing that we use evidence available and the fact that we will never get all the evidence from every day of the last more than 4 billion years.
    No, they show their ignorance about what the ToE is and also their ignorance about what science is. It reflects badly on them, not on the ToE. It reflects badly on their knowledge of science, not on the ToE. It reflects badly on their method of spreading lies and deceiving people about the ToE. It reflects badly on the fact that they don't realize that there is no clear border on where life begins. It is a grey area. For example, Is a prion alive or not? It does show some characteristics that can be included both into the ToE and into abiogenesis. The grey area.


    The ToE proudly stands, unrelated to abiogenesis, as thousands of scientists do research relating to the ToE every day, as has been going on for the last 150 years. Nobody has ever found any scientific evidence that contradicts it. Creationists redefining the natural sciences to further their goals won't change science, creationists redefining the definition of abiogenesis to further their goals won't change abiogenesis and creationists redefining the definition of evolution to further their goals won't alter the ToE. Wishful thinking doesn't change reality.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  7. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    Why are some people so passionate about this distinction?

    As soon as the first phylogenetic tree was constructed, the next obvious question was, "what was the common ancestor to us all?". THAT is abiogenesis. Every journal, every scientific conference on evolutionary science includes abiogenesis.

    Pick one of the models of abiogenesis, read its proposed mechanism. They are all about natural selection and heritable adaptation. Here's a couple articles giving an introduction to a popular abiogenesis models called The RNA World. How is this not about evolution by natural selection?
    Modelling evolution on design-by-contract predicts an origin of Life through an abiotic double-stranded RNA world

    On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  8. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
    TOE doesn't deal with the origin of life at all. That's not what it's for.
    If you want to discuss Abiogenesis, that is a different matter, and we can certainly do so, but let's first agree that we're not discussing TOE.
     
  9. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    This is really another topic, but there are several pieces of hard scientific evidence that contradict it. Here is one.

    Genome Biology | Full text | The tree of one percent

    I don't submit this as evidence against the theory of evolution, ony as evidence that you don't really know what you're talking about as much as you think.
     
  10. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    there is definitive evidence that random and nonrandom genetic change occurrs. There is no evidence that anyting happened systematically.
    The non-random mechanisms of evolutionary change have not been observed in prebiotic systems, except for that which would occur by one famous mathematicial model of chemical and hereditary epistasis.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  11. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
    Because it is highly inaccurate to lump the two together.
    Nobody is arguing that they are not related or that they cannot inform each other, just like ecology and microbiology certainly are related and can inform each other, but they are not the same thing.
     
  12. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  13. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    No, I don't think I know so much about evolution, as I'm not a biologist. I evaluate the evidence I obtain through my occupation.
    No, that’s evolution. Common ancestor deals with evolution, not abiogenesis.
    When anything passes on it's genes, it is evolution, not abiogenesis.
    The moment it deals with these two things, it is evolution, not abiogenesis.
    All this means is that the time-span of evolution is extended to earlier than we thought in the past. The moment any organism can pass on it's genes to the next generation, it becomes part of ToE. What happens before that, is not part of ToE.
    Are you trying to tell us that our evidence tell us that we know how life originated?
     
  14. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    I'm going to bite my tongue here, because the poor person who started this thread wasn't asking about this and we've completely taken over. Read those two papers I linked to and I think you'll see what I mean. I'll debate you in a new thread if you like.
     
  15. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    No, that's where you make a big mistake. The fossil evidence shows the first cellular organisms. You can't deny evidence, whether you would like to or not. Unless you want to deny that those fossils exist.
     
  16. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    The evidence shows that it did happen. Whether it was random or non random or both. It happened, the idea is to figure out how it happened. It doesn't matter which words you choose to describe it with: it happened.
     
  17. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    A language barrier is killing this dead. I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop debating with you, Mr. Krok.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  18. Krok

    Krok New Member

    Messages:
    786
    Yes, I realized that you had a problem understanding very basic English.
    You're welcome to stop. In the end you provided references where the researchers studied plants (which developed millions of years after first life, etc.) All in a thread discussing the origin of life.
    The ToE still has got nothing to do with the origin of life.
     
  19. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
    Krok broke it down for you, even if I couldn't be bothered.

    Let's do this one more time: The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life.
    That's not what it's for.
     
  20. ScottySatan

    ScottySatan Scottian

    Messages:
    982
    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.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted