Evolution and abiogenesis

[Belz...]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but evolution merely establishes that this, led to this, which led to this, which led to this. It does not and cannot ultimately explain (just for example) what caused the beak of one bird to enlarge while that of another did not. Survival imperatives may explain why the fit survive, but it does not explain how the fit become fit in the first place. Thus...legitimately introducing some manner of 'inexplicable' factor into abiogenesis may quite credibly implicate evolution.

Another fine example of you projecting your ignorance onto the world at large. Why did you not bother to read up even the more basic, cursory summaries of the theory before you posted this? The mechanism that causes for traits to arise is very much a part of that theory.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Again, this is merely one way to look at evolution.

If you were to find out the same processes, random mutation of molecules and selection pressures, went back further than you considered 'life', what then distinguishes life from non-life in terms of evolution theory?

That distinction, life vs non-life, wouldn't be meaningful then. We already have computer simulations of evolving systems, those simulations aren't alive by any common definition.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A darwinian replicator would be a self replicating entity with heritable traits that are subject to variation. A lone RNA molecule could be a darwinian replicator, people have created some in the lab, but those require very specific substrates. AFAIK, there's no plausible prebiotic RNA replicator that has been discovered.

There are at least two main schools of thought on abiogenesis: the genes first and the metabolism first. Self replicating RNA would fit into the genes first school, as would certain protocell models that are probably more plausible. These would fit with an early darwinian replicator. But the metabolism first side of the field thinks biogeochemistry developed into primitive metabolisms that were captured by protolife before genes came into play. If there's no genes (or primitive equivalent) there cant be darwinian selection, it would have to be a different type of selection.

Taking this point of view, "a self replicating entity with heritable traits that are subject to variation," how does that differ from a self replicating molecule with heritable traits that are subject to variation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The question isn't whether or not evolution happens. Quite obviously it happens. The question is how it happens. What, ultimately, causes it to happen? It becomes much easier to introduce external factors (metaphysical or otherwise) into that process (individually and / or collectively) if they can be credibly introduced into abiogenesis itself.

I highlighted the problem.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings humans made up.

By external factors, describe how such factors would not be the same random mutations and natural selection processes as occurred after abiogenesis?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but evolution merely establishes that this, led to this, which led to this, which led to this. It does not and cannot ultimately explain (just for example) what caused the beak of one bird to enlarge while that of another did not. Survival imperatives may explain why the fit survive, but it does not explain how the fit become fit in the first place. Thus...legitimately introducing some manner of 'inexplicable' factor into abiogenesis may quite credibly implicate evolution.

You are wrong. Random mutation and natural selection pressures very clearly explain those things. You need to take this denial of evolution theory to another thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know. Life could have arisen but replication not be subject to copying errors.

All this is saying is it might have happened differently. But it didn't. IOW just ignore all the evidence and make an unsupported hypothesis up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That distinction, life vs non-life, wouldn't be meaningful then. We already have computer simulations of evolving systems, those simulations aren't alive by any common definition.

There have been many arguments on whether such things as prions are living or not, whether viruses are living or not. I suggest the arguments occur because the processes before and after abiogenesis do not represent a distinct divide on the continuum of development.

 

[annnnoid]

Another fine example of you projecting your ignorance onto the world at large. Why did you not bother to read up even the more basic, cursory summaries of the theory before you posted this? The mechanism that causes for traits to arise is very much a part of that theory.

You’re just way too clever for me!!!!! Ok then Einstein…what (specifically) causes the ‘randomness’…what (specifically) causes the ‘errors’ that supposedly generate change?

Again, this is merely one way to look at evolution.

If you were to find out the same processes, random mutation of molecules and selection pressures, went back further than you considered 'life', what then distinguishes life from non-life in terms of evolution theory?

Replication and transcription error in mitosis and meiosis. Look it up.

I highlighted the problem.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings humans made up.

By external factors, describe how such factors would not be the same random mutations and natural selection processes as occurred after abiogenesis?

Ignoring your first statement…the assumption is that such factors become credible in the abiogensis profile. That in itself would take some doing. Assuming such doing were realized…it might reasonably implicate both random selection and natural selection.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snipped off topic evolution theory denial]

Sorry, nothing left to reply to.

 

[annnnoid]

You are wrong. Random mutation and natural selection pressures very clearly explain those things. You need to take this denial of evolution theory to another thread.

Who’s denying anything? I’m simply pointing out that there are holes in this stuff. It’s not rocket science. Saying something is ‘random’ merely begs the question: what causes the randomness? Presumably a beak enlarges as a consequence of some manner of random or error event….which leads to a possible survival advantage…which etc etc.

…but does it occur the other way around? Can some manner of survival imperative influence the biochemistry of reproduction?

 

[Belz...]

The location of abiogenesis isn't relevant to either abiogenesis or evolution theory except to discover the mechanism of abiogenesis.

But in a lab or by magic are failed hypotheses that need not be entertained in this debate. Even if you hypothesized we can't leave an ET lab out of the possibilities it wouldn't change anything given said ETs would have also evolved.

It is time to stop the nonsense of considering gods or other magical processes in these universe ponderings.

Who has considered anything? I'm simply explaining that the two theories are absolutely independant. Perhaps you misread my meaning.

 

[Belz...]

All this is saying is it might have happened differently. But it didn't. IOW just ignore all the evidence and make an unsupported hypothesis up.

You seem to be in "adversarial mode". I am again pointing out that the two theories are unrelated, as the mechanisms for either could be vastly different without affecting the other.

 

[Belz...]

You’re just way too clever for me!!!!!

I've gone through the trouble of looking up the theory, unlike you. Yeah, I guess it's more clever than relying on one's ignorance.

what (specifically) causes the ‘randomness’

Your question is an oxymoron. Randomness is, by definition, uncaused.

…what (specifically) causes the ‘errors’ that supposedly generate change?

The copying process isn't perfect.

You'd know this if, instead of knee-jerk responding to posts, you instead educated yourself.

 

[jimbob]

I don't know. Life could have arisen but replication not be subject to copying errors.

I think that as our knowledge improves, that option is becoming less and less plausible.

We now have circumstantial evidence that LUCA lacked some genes which allow modern life to generate and control electrochemical gradients within the proto-organism.

This implies that nutrition, respiration and excretion initially were external to the proto-organism and relied almost totally on the vagaries of the environment.

It also pretty much leaves reproduction and growth as the only aspects of life that this proto-organism had.

 

[annnnoid]

I've gone through the trouble of looking up the theory, unlike you.

You had to read up on the theory!?!?!?! Gosh …why on earth didn’t you

… bother to read up even the more basic, cursory summaries of the theory before you posted this?

Your question is an oxymoron. Randomness is, by definition, uncaused.

The copying process isn't perfect.

IOW…you don’t have a clue.

Who’s denying anything? I’m simply pointing out that there are holes in this stuff. It’s not rocket science. Saying something is ‘random’ merely begs the question: what causes the randomness? Presumably a beak enlarges as a consequence of some manner of random or error event….which leads to a possible survival advantage…which etc etc.

…but does it occur the other way around? Can some manner of survival imperative influence the biochemistry of reproduction?

…but then again…I suppose not. A survival imperative presumably not having any manner of empirical existence cannot influence something that does. Interesting possibility though…seeing as how it seems to be the foundation of the strong anthropic principle.

 

[truethat]

Great post.

When did "I've read some stuff" suddenly become the same thing as "I'm educated on this topic." And frankly, these days, reading comprehension skills in people are shockingly bad, so even when people read, they don't have a flipping clue what they are reading. It's scary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem to be in "adversarial mode". I am again pointing out that the two theories are unrelated, as the mechanisms for either could be vastly different without affecting the other.

If you find out there is evidence the mechanisms are vastly different, if you have a viable hypothesis for the mechanisms being vastly different, that would be one thing.

Sans any evidence, what I'm saying is dividing the two mechanisms is one way to look at the process. But it is arbitrary and not 'a fact'. The more evidence supported way to look at abiogenesis is to see it somewhere on a continuum that has no discrete dividing line.

I'm not saying you can't divide the two processes. And for the purposes of some discussions, it's fine.

But the evidence does not support that division. The evidence supports a continuum from non-life to life without a clear dividing line one can point to and say, here's where evolution theory applies and before that random mutation and selection pressures do not apply.

If you are going to make that arbitrary division, you need an evidence supported hypothesis for how the mechanism of abiogenesis differs.

Instead what we have is a continuum with one end that isn't in focus. But there is no evidence the processes at that end are going to be different from the processes of evolution theory.

 

[Belz...]

You had to read up on the theory!?!?!?! Gosh …why on earth didn’t you

That part of your post makes no sense whatsoever.

IOW…you don’t have a clue.

No, that's the actual answer. DNA is a complex thing copied by complex things and mistakes occur. Some of them get corrected, others not. Some of those have consequences, some good some bad, others not.

Again, your own ignorance is your only argument in every thread and topic you bother to participate. You pretend that the fact that you have no idea how these things work means no one else does, and when someone tells you how it works, you simply shout that they don't know either, because you don't know.

It's transparent, and nobody buys it, and yet you persist, looking the fool perpetually.

 

[Belz...]

I think that as our knowledge improves, that option is becoming less and less plausible.

Yes, I would agree.

If you find out there is evidence the mechanisms are vastly different, if you have a viable hypothesis for the mechanisms being vastly different, that would be one thing.

Sans any evidence, what I'm saying is dividing the two mechanisms is one way to look at the process. But it is arbitrary and not 'a fact'.

I'm not sure where the communication breakdown lies between us. You can make a hypothetical saying "If I were an engineer, it wouldn't mean that my father is a different person" in order to explain that the two are unrelated, despite the fact that you are, actually, not an engineer. I don't see where the problem is.

But the evidence does not support that division.

I'm not saying that it does.

 

[Fudbucker]

The question isn't whether or not evolution happens. Quite obviously it happens. The question is how it happens. What, ultimately, causes it to happen? It becomes much easier to introduce external factors (metaphysical or otherwise) into that process (individually and / or collectively) if they can be credibly introduced into abiogenesis itself.

Right. That was my point exactly.