Creating life from matter

[Perpetual Student]

There exists an ongoing debate among researchers regarding various models for abiogenesis, including "metabolism first" models, which do not require replicating molecules for life's very beginning. One can say such a metabolic system evolved (in the chemical sense) but such a system would not evolve through natural selection, which is the conventional sense of the word evolution -- as used by biologists.

 

[DC]

One is a theory confirmed with overwhelming evidence, the other is part of the same theory and no more than one unanswered question not yet explained completely.

If abiogenesis is not part of evolution theory, then how did evolution begin? Are you claiming evolution theory is an incomplete theory and were it complete, abiogenesis would still not be part of it?

I understand why people make the distinction between the first replicating molecules and evolution theory selection processes. But they are wrong and it comes from a failure to imagine how selection occurs in the first stages of evolution from no life to life.

Sure there is overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of evolution, or it would have to be called hypothesis of Evolution.

and i keep them seperate because, one is the explenation how simple lifeforms evolved into less simpler lifeforms and diversified.

the other is meant to be one day the theory that is able to explain how that simple lifeform came about.

yes they somehow belong together and somehow not.
i don't know about the mechanisms involved in abiogenesis, but i asume it is comparable to natural selection.

and once abiogenesis is a theory it surely has to be put together with the theory of evolution and might just end up as a sort subtheory. Else both theories make not much sense if they dont fit together.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Sure there is overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of evolution, or it would have to be called hypothesis of Evolution.

and i keep them seperate because, one is the explenation how simple lifeforms evolved into less simpler lifeforms and diversified.

the other is meant to be one day the theory that is able to explain how that simple lifeform came about.

yes they somehow belong together and somehow not.
i don't know about the mechanisms involved in abiogenesis, but i asume it is comparable to natural selection.

and once abiogenesis is a theory it surely has to be put together with the theory of evolution and might just end up as a sort subtheory. Else both theories make not much sense if they dont fit together.

If laboratory experiments eventually are able to suggest a particular path by which a self replicating information system might have arisen from available molecules we will have no way to verify that that particular hypothesis of abiogenesis is correct.
Such a complex process may have occurred potentially in many different ways.
A hypothesis requires independent verification to become a theory (which in this case is not possible).

 

[DC]

If laboratory experiments eventually are able to suggest a particular path by which a self replicating information system might have arisen from available molecules we will have no way to verify that that particular hypothesis of abiogenesis is correct.
Such a complex process may have occurred potentially in many different ways.
A hypothesis requires independent verification to become a theory (which in this case is not possible).

it is correct when it is a POSSIBLE way. then its a theory. oh well i might be mistaken.

 

[John Hewitt]

Since we don't have enough data to know how (or where) abiogenesis happened at all, I don't think that question is answerable at this time.

The point is that a great many people, including those on this forum, assert that abiogenesis and evolution are completely separate. For them, at least, there does seem to be enough data to answer that question.
(Actually, I think there is as well, its just that I arrive at the opposite conclusion.)

 

[Dinwar]

There are very practical reasons to keep abiogenesis and evolution separate. For example, different lines of evidence are used for the two subjects. I can point to fossils and say "There's proof of evolution". If you entangle abiogenesis in the definition of evolution those fossils are no longer proof of evolution, as horse teeth have nothing to do with how life arose. Similarly, a biogeochemist can point to a chemical trace fossil and say "There's proof of abiogenesis". If you entangel the two definitions it's no longer proof of anything, because it has nothing to do with how organisms evolve.

There's also very different types of evidence. Evolutionary biologists look at molecular biology, fossils, family trees, etc. Abiogenesis researchers look at Hadean atmospheric chemistry, primordial soup chemistry, and the like (using the "primordial soup" term loosely here; basically I'm refering to the oceans at the time). In historical sciences that alone is enough to differentiate between two fields. Geochemistry includes aquious and isotopic geochemistry (and isotopic includes radioactive and stable isotopic geochemistry), based on what you're looking for and how you're finding the answers--never mind the fact that only a fool would assume that the two aren't connected. A stratigrapher and a soils scientist look at the same data, often the same trench, but they see radically different things.

In terms of the Creationism/evolution debate, the fact that evolution is more than amply supported by the evidence, while we're still working on the whole abiogenesis thing, is reason enough to keep them separate. This deprives Creationists of the argument "We don't know how life arose, therefore we don't know how animals evolved in general, therefore God", an argument I'm sure we're all familiar with.

I can see that evolution and abiogenesis are two parts of a single whole, but I disagree that there's no reason to split them up. I also disagree that such a split is a cop-out on the part of an evolutionary scientist--rather, it's a sign of intellectual honesty. I study evolution. Want to know who horses react to climate change? I can find out. Want to know about recovery from mass extinctions? Cool, I can help with that. Want to know how life arose? I haven't studied that, and it would be unethical to pretend that I'm an expert in the subject.

Think of it this way: If we can split vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology (and further--marine vertebrate paleo vs. terrestrial vertebrate paleo!), there's no reason to cry foul when someone wants to split evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[John Hewitt]

I strongly concur with this statement.

And I also strongly concur with nearly everything Mr Hewitt has said on this forum to date.

Thank you for that.

 

[John Hewitt]

There are very practical reasons to keep abiogenesis and evolution separate. For example, different lines of evidence are used for the two subjects. I can point to fossils and say "There's proof of evolution". If you entangle abiogenesis in the definition of evolution those fossils are no longer proof of evolution, as horse teeth have nothing to do with how life arose. Similarly, a biogeochemist can point to a chemical trace fossil and say "There's proof of abiogenesis". If you entangel the two definitions it's no longer proof of anything, because it has nothing to do with how organisms evolve.

There's also very different types of evidence. Evolutionary biologists look at molecular biology, fossils, family trees, etc. Abiogenesis researchers look at Hadean atmospheric chemistry, primordial soup chemistry, and the like (using the "primordial soup" term loosely here; basically I'm refering to the oceans at the time). In historical sciences that alone is enough to differentiate between two fields. Geochemistry includes aquious and isotopic geochemistry (and isotopic includes radioactive and stable isotopic geochemistry), based on what you're looking for and how you're finding the answers--never mind the fact that only a fool would assume that the two aren't connected. A stratigrapher and a soils scientist look at the same data, often the same trench, but they see radically different things.

In terms of the Creationism/evolution debate, the fact that evolution is more than amply supported by the evidence, while we're still working on the whole abiogenesis thing, is reason enough to keep them separate. This deprives Creationists of the argument "We don't know how life arose, therefore we don't know how animals evolved in general, therefore God", an argument I'm sure we're all familiar with.

I can see that evolution and abiogenesis are two parts of a single whole, but I disagree that there's no reason to split them up. I also disagree that such a split is a cop-out on the part of an evolutionary scientist--rather, it's a sign of intellectual honesty. I study evolution. Want to know who horses react to climate change? I can find out. Want to know about recovery from mass extinctions? Cool, I can help with that. Want to know how life arose? I haven't studied that, and it would be unethical to pretend that I'm an expert in the subject.

Think of it this way: If we can split vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology (and further--marine vertebrate paleo vs. terrestrial vertebrate paleo!), there's no reason to cry foul when someone wants to split evolution and abiogenesis.

There is every reason to cry foul when the assertion is made that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated to one another.

 

[Dinwar]

There is every reason to cry foul when the assertion is made that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated to one another.

But not when teh assertion is made that these are two separate fields. There's a difference. Geology can be thought of as applied chemistry--yet we'd think it's insane to demand that a structural geologist know medicine. Diagensis involves groundwater hydrology, yet no one seems to mind those two fields being separate. You literally cannot discuss paleontology without discussing invertebrate paleontology, yet somehow science has accepted vertebrate paleontology as a separate field. Examples also exist in biology. Ecology is related to biochemistry, yet no one expects an ecologist to know the functioning of individual protiens (and by the same token, no one expects a mollecular biologist to grapple with nonlinear forcing mechanisms on a continent-wide scale). Because the issues involved in abiogenesis research are so different from those involved in researching evolution (related, yes, but different) I see no problem in classifying abiogenesis as a different field of research. The people who study one are not going to be experts in the other, and intellectual humility demands that they admit as much; therefore, I have no problem classifying them as separate fields.

Also, you apparently missed this part of my post:

I can see that evolution and abiogenesis are two parts of a single whole, but I disagree that there's no reason to split them up.

 

[Wowbagger]

In terms of the Creationism/evolution debate, the fact that evolution is more than amply supported by the evidence, while we're still working on the whole abiogenesis thing, is reason enough to keep them separate. This deprives Creationists of the argument "We don't know how life arose, therefore we don't know how animals evolved in general, therefore God", an argument I'm sure we're all familiar with.

"we're still working on it" is almost just as much of a non-answer to the Creationist's challenge as "they are separate subjects".

I prefer to show them what we are working on. It is often quite a lot more than they imagined, and the answers are still useful for solving problems in the field of bio-chemistry. All this, in spite of the fact that the answers are still not complete.

Provisional ideas, backed by evidence, accomplish a lot more than non-answers and superfluous ideas.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There is every reason to cry foul when the assertion is made that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated to one another.

To say they are "unrelated" when the initial process (abiogenesis) must have occurred for the second (evolution) to have a substrate within which to operate would make no sense. What some of us are saying is that "evolution through natural selection" is a distinct process from abiogenesis, not that they are unrelated. Straw man noted!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Before we keep going with this discussion, I wonder if people would mind disclosing their biases? Specifically I would like to know if we are having a scientific debate or a theological debate. Among theists who accept evolution theory, there are still some who think the gap god does or could still exist. It might annoy said theist science folks that I don't have "God did it" on my list of potential answers, just as it seems like a waste of time to me to think I am debating the science when in reality I might be debating the god question.

I myself am an atheist. My bias is that there is no magical explanation for abiogenesis. It will have a natural explanation and I don't have the "God started it" option among any hypotheses I am considering.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Before we keep going with this discussion, I wonder if people would mind disclosing their biases? Specifically I would like to know if we are having a scientific debate or a theological debate. Among theists who accept evolution theory, there are still some who think the gap god does or could still exist. It might annoy said theist science folks that I don't have "God did it" on my list of potential answers, just as it seems like a waste of time to me to think I am debating the science when in reality I might be debating the god question.

I myself am an atheist. My bias is that there is no magical explanation for abiogenesis. It will have a natural explanation and I don't have the "God started it" option among any hypotheses I am considering.

I believe you are battling a non-existent foe here. There does not appear to be a closet super-naturalist in this discussion (someone can correct me if i am wrong).
This is a discussion about abiogenesis, which only could have occurred through a natural chemical process (a chemical evolution, if you prefer) that was distinct from and preceded evolution through natural selection.
Since you seem to care about my religious views, I will admit to being a life long atheist with little patience for fanciful beliefs in deities.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe you are battling a non-existent foe here. There does not appear to be a closet super-naturalist in this discussion (someone can correct me if i am wrong).
This is a discussion about abiogenesis, which only could have occurred through a natural chemical process (a chemical evolution, if you prefer) that was distinct from and preceded evolution through natural selection.
Since you seem to care about my religious views, I will admit to being a life long atheist with little patience for fanciful beliefs in deities.

I'm not saying I smell a theist here, I just want to know if that is a hidden underlying premise before spending time arguing science with someone who is arguing about the conviction there is going to be a gap god at the root of the tree of life.

 

[John Hewitt]

To say they are "unrelated" when the initial process (abiogenesis) must have occurred for the second (evolution) to have a substrate within which to operate would make no sense. What some of us are saying is that "evolution through natural selection" is a distinct process from abiogenesis, not that they are unrelated. Straw man noted!

What is said and "I don't know how many times I have to repeat that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."
I would add that if you want to draw lines you should explain why and try to specify its position.

In my work on bioepistemic evolution I do, explicitly distinguish rank0 evolution, chemical evolution or abiogenesis, from rank1 evolution, based on nucleic acid sequence.

 

[John Hewitt]

I'm not saying I smell a theist here, I just want to know if that is a hidden underlying premise before spending time arguing science with someone who is arguing about the conviction there is going to be a gap god at the root of the tree of life.

I am not sure it belongs on this thread but it does seem a good question. Like you I am an atheist, since my teenage years, but I also see elements of necessary hypocrisy in that position. (I don't just mean in personal life, like sending my son to Sunday school, which I did, if only to give him his own choices.)
I mean that there is a necessary hypocrisy in being both an atheist and a scientist, simply because of the moral dimension that is a necessary part of scientific dialogue. This necessary morality gets summarized as Merton's rules or Grice's ethics of communication or some similar coding but they are, essentially moral codes.
Where such a moral code is ignored or absent from scientific dialogue, that dialogue produces and approves epistemic claims that are, or can be, just nonsensical.
One of the great difficulties one has with evolution, as a world view, is that it can easily be seen as validating an amoral or immoral way of dealing with other people, of flouting this moral dimension. I do see that as a significant problem in science and "A Habit of Lies" is just one among many examples. I also think this moral dimension creates an overlap between science and religion that is not about to go away.

 

[Varanid]

Can we not study the department of Homeland security without directly studying 911? The DOHS is its own entity, it behaves in a given way, etc. Obviously (in this example) it was created by 911, but we don't have to understand this fact to study the DOHS current workings.

Yes, we could understand it better since we know 911 was the catalyst, but we could still study it exclusive of 911. For that matter, it will be less important to understand the connection of the DOHS to 911 4 billion years from now.

I am with Dinwar, these are two entirely different subjects. Sure, one likely preceded the other and allowed the later to occur. This doesn't change the fact that they are two separate issues.

For the record, I am a 20+ year atheist, but I disagree that my own bias (or anyone else's) should have any place in this debate, provided everyone communicates their positions clearly.

The argument is what matters, not the arguers. Correct mistakes, argue conclusions, point out fallacies. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[DC]

Before we keep going with this discussion, I wonder if people would mind disclosing their biases? Specifically I would like to know if we are having a scientific debate or a theological debate. Among theists who accept evolution theory, there are still some who think the gap god does or could still exist. It might annoy said theist science folks that I don't have "God did it" on my list of potential answers, just as it seems like a waste of time to me to think I am debating the science when in reality I might be debating the god question.

I myself am an atheist. My bias is that there is no magical explanation for abiogenesis. It will have a natural explanation and I don't have the "God started it" option among any hypotheses I am considering.

I am only interested what science has to say about abiogenesis (Theology and Philosophy excluded)

 

[tsig]

one is a theory of an observed fact the other is a hypothesis of something never observed.

Are you claiming life doesn't exist?

 

[tsig]

The basis of evolution is random mutation and selection pressures. Random mutation, nucleotides, RNA, DNA, codons, protein synthesis and folding ... all chemistry. This may be where you need to consider a paradigm shift. And perhaps we are not as far apart as you think.

Clearly there was a first self replicating organic molecule. That molecule differed from a simple growing crystal or other similar molecules in that instead of just accumulating atoms, the first replicating molecule had to have two parts that split and reassembled its other half then split again over and over.

This is where the process of evolution begins and where the process of 'only' chemistry leaves off. If one wants to define the process of evolution beginning somewhere else then you need to justify the difference between the first replicating molecule and the first replicating organism (using a broad definition of 'organism' to include acellular organisms like viruses). I see no logical way to define such a difference.

Yes once you have a replicating molecule evolution starts, the question of how that first replicating molecule came to be is abiogenesis.