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.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Yes you are wrong. It explains the mechanism as well.

There are a myriad of possibly beneficial traits that would improve the reproductive chances of any particular organism - some are more likely to occur than others, either because the benefit of a partial trait is so strong (strong selective pressure) or because it doesn't require much of a change to occur. Other traits are more unlikely but will sometimes arise.

I tend to view evolution via natural selection as akin to playing a game with lots of differently-biased dice. The exact route is not predetermined, but various outcomes are more or less likely. Flight has evolved many times, so that is quite likely, similarly with sight.

 

[jimbob]

BTW: John Maynard Smith's The Theory of Evolution is a really good book for a layperson and which covers a lot of the approaches to selective pressure and other aspects of evolution/

 

[jimbob]

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

Yes, I would agree.

Fair enough - I can't actually think of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis that doesn't involve evolution of proto-life before true life arises.

I agree that it is possible to think of implausible mechanisms though.

 

[Fudbucker]

What some of you are saying is that this would be convincing to a person:
"Look, we have no idea how life started. We've been at it for forever and we keep coming up short. Every attempt to create life in the lab has failed. Maybe aliens really did seed the planet. BUT we are absolutely sure about what happened once life got started, and we know no aliens were involved."

Isn't there some tension going on between those two claims?

 

[truethat]

Abiogenesis has one answer. There is only one real answer that will ever be. "We don't know." Period the end.

I remember being a kid and one of the reasons I was so sold on the idea of Heaven was I thought when you died and went to heaven, they would answer all of your questions about life.

But that's never going to happen. Even if we THINK we've figured out, bar the ability of a time machine, it ain't ever going to happen. So we should not make up stories to make ourselves feel better.

To me, a sign of intelligence is the ability to say "I don't know" and be comfortable with not knowing. People who are emotional don't seem to be able to handle it. So they comfort themselves with theories and lies.

God did it
Aliens seeded the planet
If we do enough research we can figure it out.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your analogy doesn't fit reality unless you are arguing for Intelligent Design or creation of the first life form via magical conception and thereby trying to separate abiogenesis out, as if those two hypotheses are still on the table, it would be just as much denial as arguing we didn't have enough supporting evidence for evolution theory.

Again: claiming that a pregnancy was "miraculous", or the result of advanced lab technology, or the result of unskilled labor does not change the fact of the pregnancy, or the foetus develops. Not knowing which of the above caused the pregnancy does not make the pregnancy go away...

Not knowing which of the possible avenues of biopoesis actually led to life on this planet does not change the observable facts of evolution by natural selection; nor does it make evolution "didn't happen".

 

[Belz...]

Abiogenesis has one answer. There is only one real answer that will ever be. "We don't know." Period the end.

Right! Just like "what is the sun?" will never have an answer. Just like "how do birds fly?" will never have an answer.

You'd make an awesome scientist.

 

[Fudbucker]

Again: claiming that a pregnancy was "miraculous", or the result of advanced lab technology, or the result of unskilled labor does not change the fact of the pregnancy, or the foetus develops. Not knowing which of the above caused the pregnancy does not make the pregnancy go away...

Not knowing which of the possible avenues of biopoesis actually led to life on this planet does not change the observable facts of evolution by natural selection; nor does it make evolution "didn't happen".

AFAIK, intelligent design theories don't posit that natural selection doesn't occur or that evolution "didn't happen". They say that at certain points, where natural selection would have produced organism X, outside intervention happened to produce organism Y. In other words, how do you know it was a cosmic ray that produced a mutation and not an alien mutation gun?

 

[jimbob]

AFAIK, intelligent design theories don't posit that natural selection doesn't occur or that evolution "didn't happen". They say that at certain points, where natural selection would have produced organism X, outside intervention happened to produce organism Y.

Except that every posited example of "irreducible" complexity so far has been shown to be eminently reducible. So there is no reason to invoke anything exotic in the first place.

 

[jimbob]

Right! Just like "what is the sun?" will never have an answer. Just like "how do birds fly?" will never have an answer.

You'd make an awesome scientist.

I bet that a fair number of the British posters at least would be able to guess what that 30-second video is before clicking on it

 

[truethat]

Right! Just like "what is the sun?" will never have an answer. Just like "how do birds fly?" will never have an answer.

You'd make an awesome scientist.

We do have the answers to those, so your comment is stupid and irrelevant.

We cannot see the moment of abiogensis. We can theorize about it but it is impossible to know or to prove. So making up **** and calling it science is just as stupid as making up **** and calling it God or aliens or whatever.

We don't know and we will never know. Instead, we should spend our energies on things we can examine and study as most scientists actually do.

 

[Belz...]

We do have the answers to those, so your comment is stupid and irrelevant.

And woosh!

We didn't at some point. Just like right now we don't have the answer to this. I'm actually surprised you've managed to not get that.

We cannot see the moment of abiogensis.

We also cannot see the moment of a lot of past events that we've determined. Your argument is one of pure ignorance.

 

[Fudbucker]

Except that every posited example of "irreducible" complexity so far has been shown to be eminently reducible. So there is no reason to invoke anything exotic in the first place.

Unless you've got your foot in the door via exotic abiogenesis. If speculation about aliens seeding life is taken seriously, then speculation that aliens seeded life AND guided it at certain points to produce intelligent beings like us would seem to be legit speculation as well, and that's where the damage to evolution theory comes in.

 

[Belz...]

Unless you've got your foot in the door via exotic abiogenesis. If speculation about aliens seeding life is taken seriously, then speculation that aliens seeded life AND guided it at certain points to produce intelligent beings like us would seem to be legit speculation as well, and that's where the damage to evolution theory comes in.

Not at all, since the two theories are entirely separate. The aliens, after all, came from somewhere, too.

 

[truethat]

And woosh!

We didn't at some point. Just like right now we don't have the answer to this. I'm actually surprised you've managed to not get that.



We also cannot see the moment of a lot of past events that we've determined. Your argument is one of pure ignorance.

No it is not. We will never be able to go back in time and see it. Even if we replicate it now, we are replicating life from life forms that exist NOW in the environment that exists NOW. We are not replicating it as it existed then and, as I already pointed out, barring a time machine we will never be able to replicate the past to be what it was when abiogenesis occurred.

In my personal opinion it was caused by something very minor and the replication is what started it off and it kept going. Like a spark during Big Bang, a random occurrence.

I've seen a good comment that states that just because it requires Intelligence to understand how something happened, doesn't mean it requires intelligence for it to happen. I think that's what a lot of Creationists don't understand.

But to me it's not some giant magic mystery that we need to solve. Probably a blip in the stars set it off. And here were are. I'm not impressed with morons trying to pass off "Philosophy" as science.

 

[Belz...]

No it is not. We will never be able to go back in time and see it.

Gee, I guess all of history is a sham, then. I guess when we see a crater made in the past, there's no way for us to know how it was formed.

But to me it's not some giant magic mystery that we need to solve. Probably a blip in the stars set it off. And he were are. I'm not impressed with morons trying to pass off "Philosophy" as science.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

 

[truethat]

History is filled with lots of bad science because morons equivocated Philosophy with science. Understanding what we can observe and examine (the sun, the birds flying) is not at all the same thing as understanding something we cannot see and cannot replicate bar a time machine.

The fact that this difference eludes you is why your statements are so ridiculous and not even worth discussing.

 

[Fudbucker]

Not at all, since the two theories are entirely separate. The aliens, after all, came from somewhere, too.

If the two theories were "entirely separate", there wouldn't be a direct causal chain that links the two. As someone earlier pointed out, when evolution is mentioned in biology textbooks, abiogenesis is also mentioned. Evolution is just a subset of an overarching theory of life that includes abiogenesis, evolution, germ theory, sexual reproduction, etc. (I think this was brought up by another poster).

Your point about aliens needing to have evolved from somewhere else is relevant.

 

[Belz...]

History is filled with lots of bad science because morons equivocated Philosophy with science. Understanding what we can observe and examine (the sun, the birds flying) is not at all the same thing as understanding something we cannot see and cannot replicate bar a time machine.

The fact that this difference eludes you is why your statements are so ridiculous and not even worth discussing.

Speaking of sophism, what does this even mean? I asked you once for clarification and your answer is more nonsense, indicating that you, in fact, have nothing to say. Either make your meaning clear or admit that you're not saying anything of value.

 

[truethat]

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.

This is similar to the point I am making. Seems to me people try to make magic out of it like "life POPPED" and then it started all life on the planet. IMO the cause of life was probably a non life glitch. A start in a replicating system that over time became life as we know it today.

I think we glorify it too much as some sort of "special thing" when it's probably completely ordinary. That's what I mean when I say "Intelligence to understand something doesn't mean it requires intelligence for it to happen."

So for example, the old adage about the complexity of an eyeball. An eyeball only seems sophisticated to us as we understand it. It seems complex to us. But it an unto itself, it's just an organic development.