• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Evolution and abiogenesis

I am not aware of any proposed abiogenesis mechanism that requires natural selection by virtue of random errors of replication, but I'm always more than willing to learn if there is such a proposed mechanism. In any case, yes, I agree it might be a component, but I do not currently see how that might work.
Think about it; there can be no natural selection without replication, but replication can readily be demonstrated without natural selection.
It would appear to me that there is a grey area (not an abrupt line) between the two mechanisms. FTR: no deities are required.

FTR, I'm one of those, 'we have evidence to conclude all gods are myths' atheists. ;)

The current research on self replicating RNA molecules is the proposed mechanism or at least a step in it.

I'm just saying there is no evidence to suggest random mutation and natural selection pressures suddenly turned on at some stage in the process. Rather it makes more sense given the evidence we do have, that those mutations began accumulating in replicating single molecules long before any semblance of what we think of as a life form began. I think the evidence supports a continuum, not an abrupt onset midway through the process.
 
...Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is a taxonomic bright line along the spectrum of objects. Abiogenesis is the set of characteristics that define the moment that a thing changes from being non-life to being life.
It was said upstream:
The classic definition of life is that living organisms exhibit the following behaviours
Nutrition
Respiration
Excretion
Growth
Reproduction
Movement
Response

There are microorganisms today that get all that just floating passively around. They respond to chemicals in the environment. They move on currents.

That's not much different from individual molecules floating in a substrate.

But to separate it from crystal formation or some other chemical process is the mutations need to accumulate and have direction.

In that respect, it's no different from the taxonomic definition that allows Pluto to lose it's place as a planet. Pluto lacks some of the characteristics that we've defined as belong to a planet. Similarly (if I understand correctly), viruses lack some of the characteristics that we've defined as belong to life. They're pretty darn close - they tick many of the boxes... but ultimately they fall just a tiny bit short. Just like Pluto falls a tiny bit short of being a planet.
But the issue at hand is not, what to categorize as life and non-life. The issue is, did random mutation and natural selection pressures affect pre-life in the same way. IOW abiogenesis is simply more of the same, the processes of evolution started first, abiogenesis then life came after.

Abiogenesis and Evolution end up being talked about together frequently... but ultimately they're not the same thing. No more than the process of planet formation is the same as the definition of what constitutes a planet versus a dwarf-planet. One is a process by which a change occurs; the other is a taxonomy.
Talked about differently doesn't make the processes suddenly change at that line of yours. Pluto lost it's place as a planet when it was determined it was a kuiper belt object and its origin differed from that of the other planets.

If we find out there was some abrupt onset dividing life from non-life, my favored hypothesis will have been disproved. But I see no evidence we are going to discover the equivalent kuiper belt process going on before life and a metaphorically separate planetary formation after life when evolution began.
 
Last edited:
It was said upstream:

There are microorganisms today that get all that just floating passively around. They respond to chemicals in the environment. They move on currents.

That's not much different from individual molecules floating in a substrate.
But the issue at hand is not, what to categorize as life and non-life. The issue is, did random mutation and natural selection pressures affect pre-life in the same way. IOW abiogenesis is simply more of the same, the processes of evolution started first, abiogenesis then life came after.

Talked about differently doesn't make the processes suddenly change at that line of yours. Pluto lost it's place as a planet when it was determined it was a kuiper belt object and its origin differed from that of the other planets.

If we find out there was some abrupt onset dividing life from non-life, my favored hypothesis will have been disproved. But I see no evidence we are going to discover the equivalent kuiper belt process going on before life and a metaphorically separate planetary formation after life and evolution began.

/aside

Don't you love how astro- and other physicists always manage, somehow, to come home to roost. :):eusa_naughty::)
 
Consider:
At some point during the Hadean a polymer (RNA?) with the capacity for imperfect self replication was formed in an aqueous solution.

There need be no encapsulation (membrane), there is no need for specifying the length of the polymer, there is no need for a genetic code (no translation), there is no need for metabolic pathways. There is only an aqueous solution with necessary raw materials and the minimal necessary polymer for imperfect, but high fidelity self reproduction. If the reproductive fidelity is poor, reproduction will not continue, if perfect it will not have the capacity to introduce variation (although an initially perfect replicator could acquire variation by introducing modified raw material!).

It may have occurred in fits and starts, over an indefinite period of time, but once this replicator is formed in the presence of sufficient raw materials evolution has begun. I agree, it would be very difficult to call this replicating molecule "living", but evolution would have begun, possibly with a single strand of self replicating polymer. All (most?) of the attributes of life as we know it would be added over a few hundred million years, but there is a definite starting moment where evolution of the replicator begins.

Before this moment there is no evolution as we know it, there is only chemistry. To be sure if we want to tweak the definition of evolution to mean simply "change over time" then we could apply the term to the prebiotic soup and its altering chemistries on the early earth. On the other hand, if we want to define evolution as requiring the presence of an evolving imperfect self replicator then there is a point of beginning.

At some point after the replicator had acquired enough recognizable characteristics it would be obviously "alive", but it is difficult to pin down at exactly what point that transition was crossed.

So, there is a dividing line between pure chemistry and evolving chemistry, and an uncertain boundary between evolving chemistry and evolving life. Evolution with a capital E, as I understand it, applies only to what happens after the origin of the imperfect self replicator, but for several hundred million years this would have been difficult to recognize as "alive".
This is consistent with my continuum hypothesis. You can identify steps where a change is marked. But the earliest processes driving the accumulation of mutations don't abruptly change from one step to the next until you get to more advanced life where reproduction becomes more complex.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

I think what SS is trying to say is rather unexceptional, kinda putting a pretty-much-everyone-agrees boundary, sorta, on the topic. But the way it's expressed is, I agree, hard to follow. That's why I tried to understand it, by changing the context (see my 'purple post', above). :)
What does the part of your post I bolded mean?

If you think SS's posts make sense, summarize them in your own words, because your changes didn't make anything more clear to me.

It's hard to follow because it's a rambling philosophical discussion that lacks clear connections to the discussion at hand. It's so poorly stated that even you had to put your own meaning into it to try to make sense of it.

Did you have any trouble following MuDPhuD's detailed discussion? No, because it's not rambling.
 
FTR, I'm one of those, 'we have evidence to conclude all gods are myths' atheists. ;)

The current research on self replicating RNA molecules is the proposed mechanism or at least a step in it.

I'm just saying there is no evidence to suggest random mutation and natural selection pressures suddenly turned on at some stage in the process. Rather it makes more sense given the evidence we do have, that those mutations began accumulating in replicating single molecules long before any semblance of what we think of as a life form began. I think the evidence supports a continuum, not an abrupt onset midway through the process.
Part of the problem may be how we define life. As you know the definition is convoversial, but from my perspective a self replicating molecule that can potentially sustain replication indefinitely is life. It is easy to demonstrate why replication can never occur indefinitely with 100% fidelity in any environment with UV radiation, contact with other molecules, etc., so we are inevitably brought to natural selection.
Abiogenisis is that process that resulted in that first self replicating molecule -- a distinct process as far as I can see.
I can envision that process as random and likely to have occurred millions of times over 100s of millions of years. Ultimately, our remote self replicating molecular ancestor out-competed the others.
FTR: I am one of those "there is not a single shred of scientific evidence for the existence of any deities anywhere anytime."
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
I disagree.

I think what SS is trying to say is rather unexceptional, kinda putting a pretty-much-everyone-agrees boundary, sorta, on the topic. But the way it's expressed is, I agree, hard to follow. That's why I tried to understand it, by changing the context (see my 'purple post', above).
What does the part of your post I bolded mean?
Forget that; here's what I think SS said, somewhat oversimplified:

When a paradigm shift occurs, in science, there will be changes in what certain key terms mean. And the demarcation between science and else may also change. We should keep this in mind when discussing abiogenesis and evolution. Particularly as, when we finally discover some non-Earth life, research into that life may cause us to change what we mean by the two terms.

Or perhaps:

When we get to study 'other than Earth' life, we may find that our ideas of what abiogenesis and evolution are are inadequate/need generalizing/flawed/... Let's not forget that, in this discussion.

As I said, unexceptional, putting a pretty-much-everyone-agrees boundary on the topic (I hope that's clear now).

Of course, I could be totally off-base ...

If you think SS's posts make sense, summarize them in your own words, because your changes didn't make anything more clear to me.
I was referring to just that one post, not what he wrote in total.

It's hard to follow because it's a rambling philosophical discussion that lacks clear connections to the discussion at hand. It's so poorly stated that even you had to put your own meaning into it to try to make sense of it.

<snip>
Agreed.

I feel it's much more about the philosophy of science than science itself; and not especially relevant to abiogenesis or evolution.
 
Part of the problem may be how we define life. As you know the definition is convoversial, but from my perspective a self replicating molecule that can potentially sustain replication indefinitely is life....
I don't think many people would call a single replicating molecule life. But if that's the case we may not differ in our views of the continuum.
 
Forget that; here's what I think SS said, somewhat oversimplified:

When a paradigm shift occurs, in science, there will be changes in what certain key terms mean. And the demarcation between science and else may also change. We should keep this in mind when discussing abiogenesis and evolution. Particularly as, when we finally discover some non-Earth life, research into that life may cause us to change what we mean by the two terms.

Or perhaps:

When we get to study 'other than Earth' life, we may find that our ideas of what abiogenesis and evolution are are inadequate/need generalizing/flawed/... Let's not forget that, in this discussion.

As I said, unexceptional, putting a pretty-much-everyone-agrees boundary on the topic (I hope that's clear now).

Of course, I could be totally off-base ...


I was referring to just that one post, not what he wrote in total.


Agreed.

I feel it's much more about the philosophy of science than science itself; and not especially relevant to abiogenesis or evolution.
A valiant effort on your part to make sense of SS's posts.

This is a given and I wonder how hard it was for you to stretch what he posted to get this:
When we get to study 'other than Earth' life, we may find that our ideas of what abiogenesis and evolution are are inadequate/need generalizing/flawed/... Let's not forget that, in this discussion.

I still have the problem that, in that philosophical discussion, SS failed to connect it to what we actually know about abiogenesis at the moment. It's like saying, the current evidence is irrelevant because conclusions might change in the future.

He failed to address his claim of not being able to collect enough evidence to understand the process of abiogenesis because we supposedly can't replicate the conditions.

IOW the original still reads as gobbily gook.
 
I don't think many people would call a single replicating molecule life. But if that's the case we may not differ in our views of the continuum.

Indeed, unless I'm out of date*, viruses are generally not considered to be alive.


*I am an applied physicist by training and an engineer by inclination and profession, so that is quite possible.
 
A valiant effort on your part to make sense of SS's posts.
Thanks. :)

This is a given and I wonder how hard it was for you to stretch what he posted to get this:

When we get to study 'other than Earth' life, we may find that our ideas of what abiogenesis and evolution are are inadequate/need generalizing/flawed/... Let's not forget that, in this discussion.
Well, it certainly wasn't easy. :rolleyes:

And I'm far from certain that that is a reasonable gloss.

It helped that, a loooong time ago now, I was quite curious about the philosophy of science, and spent rather too many hours reading up on it.

I still have the problem that, in that philosophical discussion, SS failed to connect it to what we actually know about abiogenesis at the moment. It's like saying, the current evidence is irrelevant because conclusions might change in the future.

He failed to address his claim of not being able to collect enough evidence to understand the process of abiogenesis because we supposedly can't replicate the conditions.
Quite.

IOW the original still reads as gobbily gook.
As opposed to gobbledygook, yeah ;) :D
 
I don't think many people would call a single replicating molecule life...
That may be true. As further explanation (not a defense, since it is a choice of definition), when a molecule can replicate itself by aggregating the needed material (nutrients), and that new replica can do the same thing, I see that as a "living" thing.
Whether viruses are life has been and continues to be controversial. In order to reproduce, viruses need other living things and even highly evolved cell structure. The primitive replicating molecules I have in mind require neither. The only requirement is the existence of a medium with the required nutrients, which were likely to be abundant for hundreds of millions of years.
 
But the issue at hand is not, what to categorize as life and non-life. The issue is, did random mutation and natural selection pressures affect pre-life in the same way. IOW abiogenesis is simply more of the same, the processes of evolution started first, abiogenesis then life came after.

...

Talked about differently doesn't make the processes suddenly change at that line of yours. Pluto lost it's place as a planet when it was determined it was a kuiper belt object and its origin differed from that of the other planets.

If we find out there was some abrupt onset dividing life from non-life, my favored hypothesis will have been disproved. But I see no evidence we are going to discover the equivalent kuiper belt process going on before life and a metaphorically separate planetary formation after life when evolution began.

:confused: I didn't think that was what I was saying. I think I've blurted out my view on it elsewhere in this thread, but I'm being lazy and I'm not going to go look it up.

I don't think evolution beings at that bright line. Personally, I think evolution as a process operates before and after that taxonomically defined line... but I also think that evolution as a concept is functionally the same for all objects existing in an environment that changed over time. It takes on the aspect of imperfect replication in some contexts, but the process of 'more fit to an environment' = 'more likely to persist/propagate' is one that works for almost any dynamic conditions.
 
Forget that; here's what I think SS said, somewhat oversimplified:

When a paradigm shift occurs, in science, there will be changes in what certain key terms mean. And the demarcation between science and else may also change. We should keep this in mind when discussing abiogenesis and evolution. Particularly as, when we finally discover some non-Earth life, research into that life may cause us to change what we mean by the two terms.

Or perhaps:

When we get to study 'other than Earth' life, we may find that our ideas of what abiogenesis and evolution are are inadequate/need generalizing/flawed/... Let's not forget that, in this discussion.

I can follow those points made by you, and I agree - they're so trivially true that they don't even need to be said.

Where I end up diverging from your level of patience is that 1) Nobody in this thread has suggested that the terms are forever fixed in stone and 2) SS keeps using this as if it is an argument against the discussion, as if the potential for the definitions to change at some undefined point in the future implies that we should toss out the current definitions that we're applying while trying to find that other life.

In other words... 1) he's tilting at windmills and 2) I don't even know the name for this fallacy, maybe a somewhat sophisticated strawman?
 
:confused: I didn't think that was what I was saying. I think I've blurted out my view on it elsewhere in this thread, but I'm being lazy and I'm not going to go look it up.



I don't think evolution beings at that bright line. Personally, I think evolution as a process operates before and after that taxonomically defined line... but I also think that evolution as a concept is functionally the same for all objects existing in an environment that changed over time. It takes on the aspect of imperfect replication in some contexts, but the process of 'more fit to an environment' = 'more likely to persist/propagate' is one that works for almost any dynamic conditions.



Evolution, as in "T O E", requires an imperfectly self replicating molecule. In the history of life on earth the initial appearance of that molecule probably does not meet our current definition of life; therefore evolution began at a "bright line", but before recognizable life forms were present. What we understand about biological evolution as it currently occurs requires the imperfect replicator. The "evolution as a concept" you are talking about is not TOE.

I note your use of "propagate"; that is replication. If it is perfect there will be no variation. Without variation there can be be no "more fit". Thus, imperfect replication is what you describe.

Are you aware of an instance of self propagation with accumulated variation leading to evolution which does not involve life as we know it?
 
But to separate it from crystal formation or some other chemical process is the mutations need to accumulate and have direction.

They only have to accumulate. Accumulation creates a direction.

You made a false distinction. If changes accumulate, then the direction is determined by what is accumulating.

Natural selection is determines the direction of biological evolution. The direction is determined by 'survival of the fittest'. 'Survival' means accumulation. The inheritable variations that survive accumulate.

Complexity can result from the accumulation of random variations even in nonbiological systems. Crystal growth (e.g., snowflakes) is the best known example of a nonbiological process that develops complexity through accumulation. However, the annealing of crystal defects may in some ways be a better example where complexity grows. Individual defects are probably irreproducible. There are many variations on the slip plane.

If a crystal is bombarded with high energy radiation, then it develops point defects on an atomic level. Individual atoms are knocked out of position in the crystal lattice, often leaving nearest neighbors alone. Atomic forces are generally short range compared to the lattice constants. Therefore, a high energy particle can knock two maybe three atoms out of position in the lattice at one time. Hypothetically, the point defect is immortal at absolute zero temperature.

Point defects often form while the crystal is solidifying from a fluid. Note every atom sticks the surface in the exact lattice position. So

Point defects include both vacancies and interstitial atoms. Point defects aren't thermodynamically stable. They represents local valleys in the potential energy of the crystal. However, there is generally a peak in potential that prevents them from recombining right away. Point defects have activation energy that prevents them from instantly disappearing. So point defects have a limited lifetime/


Absolute zero temperature is not achievable by the third law of thermodynamics. Defects move around and interact at finite temperatures. No one has been able to achieve temperatures so low that point defects are stationary. They move around and interact. They destroy each otehr by recombining. They catalyze the destruction of other defects. They combine into extremely complex defects that are often relatively stable.

The result is that crystals anneal. Most of the defects disappear over time. Most are destroyed by other defects. However, some defects combine defects that are more stable than the defects that came before them. Some of the defects are more complex than the ones that came before. In fact, the most stable defects are very complex.

There are many recognizable types of defects. Slip planes look like long lines. Some defects look like long corkscrews, spiraling with an atomic diameter. Some of these defects are stable for temperatures below the temperature at which they formed.

The result is that the crystal anneals at finite temperature. Crystal growers often heat the crystal to reduce the number of defects. However, this never destroys all the defects. The defects that remain become more complex.

The result is that most crystals have complex defects that in quasi equilibrium at some finite temperature. The crystal retains point defects, of course. However, these point defects move around at finite temperatures. Stationary defects tend to be very complex.

Atomic scale defects form at very high temperatures. Vibrations knock atoms out of place. So you can't remove defects entirely by heating them. Cycles of heating and cooling make very complex

Few crystals are perfect at achievable temperatures. A few perfect crystals have been made using very complex technology. However, only crystals made of a single element can be made defect free. For example, perfect crystals of silicon have been manufactured. However, crystals made of more than one element can not be made defect free even with the most elaborate technology.

Minerals (i.e., natural crystals) always have defects. without defects. Defects in a mineral are like fingerprints. Every crystal has its own distinct pattern of defects. Defects on an atomic and molecular scale can be identified by various types of spectroscopy.

Complex defects often determine important properties of that crystal. The tempering process creates very complex defects on a molecular scale. Tempered steel is hard due to its slip plane defects. The hardening due to slip plane defects is comparable to the hardening due to carbon and other elements. Iron crystals without defects and impurities is very soft.

So crystal annealing is a good example of a process where 'random variation' together with 'natural selection' creates unique structures of great complexity. Biological evolution is not the only process that creates complex and irreproducible structures.
 
Last edited:
<snip>Few crystals are perfect at achievable temperatures. A few perfect crystals have been made using very complex technology. However, only crystals made of a single element can be made defect free. For example, perfect crystals of silicon have been manufactured. However, crystals made of more than one element can not be made defect free even with the most elaborate technology.

Fascinating.:vulcan:
In sci-fi terms, I've often speculated about some future manufacturing that is atomically perfect, which the above seems to definitively demolish. I wonder, though about exploiting defects to advantage, and atomically designed, even if imperfect, crystals and molecules.

Minerals (i.e., natural crystals) always have defects. without defects. Defects in a mineral are like fingerprints. Every crystal has its own distinct pattern of defects. Defects on an atomic and molecular scale can be identified by various types of spectroscopy.

Complex defects often determine important properties of that crystal. The tempering process creates very complex defects on a molecular scale. Tempered steel is hard due to its slip plane defects. The hardening due to slip plane defects is comparable to the hardening due to carbon and other elements. Iron crystals without defects and impurities is very soft.

So crystal annealing is a good example of a process where 'random variation' together with 'natural selection' creates unique structures of great complexity. Biological evolution is not the only process that creates complex and irreproducible structures.

People obsessed with purity would benefit so much from such knowledge. If only! Long live defects.
 
Fascinating.:vulcan:
In sci-fi terms, I've often speculated about some future manufacturing that is atomically perfect, which the above seems to definitively demolish. I wonder, though about exploiting defects to advantage, and atomically designed, even if imperfect, crystals and molecules.

That covers most of solid state science.

Sword makers have 'tempered steel' for thousands of years. Tempered steel is different from untempered steel only because of the defects. A blacksmith often tempers steel by hitting it very hard with a hammer. This doesn't add any element, but it adds complex defects on an atomic level.

Carbon steel itself is a case where an impurity (carbon) is used to restrict the mobility of a defects. Interstitial carbon atoms block the motion of slip plane defects. Interstitial atoms are included by what I call defects.

The motion of slip plane defects causes metal to be soft. A metal can bend mostly due to the motion of slip planes.

The electronics industry relies on crystals that are impure. Special point impurities are used to change the properties of semiconductor crystals. Usually, the engineer tries to suppress other types of defects from forming.

Total suppression of defects is very expensive in unicrystals (e.g., Si, Ge) and impossible in binary crystals (e.g., GaAs). So the effects of defects have to be accounted for in the manufacturing process. Usually the crystals is over dosed with impurities so the other defects are 'overwhelmed'. However, defects are used in the manufacture of some components.

High resistivity crystals are often used as a substrate for circuits. They are usually made that way through defects. Any semiconductor crystal that is absolutely defect and impurity free has to have a high electrical conductivity, in principle. However, such crystals are prohibitively expensive. So manufacturers go the other way. They load down the crystals with so many complex defects or impurities that the electrical resistance is very high.

There is only one application where pure, defect free crystals are worth their manufacturing cost. Some diffraction experiments using high energy or heavy particles requires crystals. Neutron diffraction experiments require pure, defect free crystals that are usually silicon. Some gamma ray diffraction requires defect free crystals.

I don't know any commercial technology depends directly on defect free crystals.The scientific information from these diffraction experiments can be scientifically important, though.

There is one abiogenesis theory referred to as the 'scaffold hypothesis'. In this model, the defects in mineral crystals provided the 'scaffold' for organic life. The mineral defects competed in a very general way to form complex structures. Some of them may have adsorbed organic molecules to aid in their growth. The organic molecules eventually became the first living things.

So 'up from slime' may turn out to be overly optimistic. Ultimately, we may be the descendants of a 'mineral defect'! :)
 
Evolution, as in "T O E", requires an imperfectly self replicating molecule. In the history of life on earth the initial appearance of that molecule probably does not meet our current definition of life; therefore evolution began at a "bright line", but before recognizable life forms were present. What we understand about biological evolution as it currently occurs requires the imperfect replicator. The "evolution as a concept" you are talking about is not TOE.
You are correct; I am well aware that I'm expanding the process to a larger context.

I note your use of "propagate"; that is replication. If it is perfect there will be no variation. Without variation there can be be no "more fit". Thus, imperfect replication is what you describe.
I disagree. I'm using "propagate" to include both replication, reproduction, and persistence of a thing. In that context, the only time you can get nothing "more fit" is if the environment is static. As long as the environment is dynamic, the definition of "fit" will change over time. Realistically, evolution includes both the mutability of the object in question (due to imperfect replication) and the mutability of a dynamic environment within which the object exists. My thinking is that you can still get the "selection" effect of evolution when you have perfect propagation within a changing environment.

Are you aware of an instance of self propagation with accumulated variation leading to evolution which does not involve life as we know it?
Not under the auspices of biological evolution, no.

I know this is a fuzzy blob ;). I'm more interested in the process than the theory. The theory of evolution that says "characteristics that allow a thing to survive better are more likely to be passed on through subsequent generations". Within that context, the process is confined to genetic replication and heritability.

But if you lift that constraint, the process still works. It's a universe-sized pachinko machine. It's a probability-based filter. A conformation that is more stable will last longer, until the environment changes... then it lasts depending on how well that conformation "fits" the new environment.

It doesn't assume imperfect replication as the only driver of change - it assumes all sorts of interactions between an environment and an object as potential drivers of change. In increase in solar activity increases the number of photons impacting a molecule, and will effect the combinations of molecules that are more stable. Ones that are stable with fewer photons may be less table than a different combination with many photons. Complex molecules that develop and gain stability under extreme temperatures may not be stable when the temperatures drop, because they're exposed to other interactions (like cold) that affect how chemicals behave and interact.

I know there's more to it, and I know I'm missing things. I have a mental map of a relationship and process, that to me seems to be the same as the process at work in standard evolution, but without the same constraints.

I am well aware that I can't produce any math or anything to support this. It is essentially woo from my mindbrain ;). But I think there's a functional process that is agnostic of the constraints of heritability and replication.
 
Last edited:
That covers most of solid state science.

Sword makers have 'tempered steel' for thousands of years. Tempered steel is different from untempered steel only because of the defects. A blacksmith often tempers steel by hitting it very hard with a hammer. This doesn't add any element, but it adds complex defects on an atomic level.

Hmm, I think that's "work hardening", not tempering. Tempering is heating the sword to a particular temperature to break down the brittle Martensite formed during quenching into slightly softer, tougher crystals. When you work harden, you typically work at lower temperatures, and you instead get the required hardness and strength through the shaping of the metal, which does indeed introduce defects reducing softness. However, you get far less toughness.

It is how you make copper into something useful for a weapon, however.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, I think that's "work hardening", not tempering. Tempering is heating the sword to a particular temperature to break down the brittle Martensite formed during quenching into slightly softer, tougher crystals. When you work harden, you typically work at lower temperatures, and you instead get the required hardness and strength through the shaping of the metal, which does indeed introduce defects reducing softness. However, you get far less toughness.

It is how you make copper into something useful for a weapon, however.

You are right and I was wrong. Thank you!

Work hardening increases the yield strength of the metal my forming complex defects. The defects duct it out! :p

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening
‘Before work hardening, the lattice of the material exhibits a regular, nearly defect-free pattern (almost no dislocations). The defect-free lattice can be created or restored at any time by annealing. As the material is work hardened it becomes increasingly saturated with new dislocations, and more dislocations are prevented from nucleating (a resistance to dislocation-formation develops). This resistance to dislocation-formation manifests itself as a resistance to plastic deformation; hence, the observed strengthening.
In metallic crystals, irreversible deformation is usually carried out on a microscopic scale by defects called dislocations, which are created by fluctuations in local stress fields within the material culminating in a lattice rearrangement as the dislocations propagate through the lattice. At normal temperatures the dislocations are not annihilated by annealing. Instead, the dislocations accumulate, interact with one another, and serve as pinning points or obstacles that significantly impede their motion. This leads to an increase in the yield strength of the material and a subsequent decrease in ductility.’
 
They only have to accumulate. Accumulation creates a direction.
Then what I said wasn't wrong, was it? :rolleyes:

You made a false distinction. If changes accumulate, then the direction is determined by what is accumulating.
No, you are making a baseless semantic argument. What I said might have been redundant but that is different from your baseless nitpick.

Natural selection is determines the direction of biological evolution. The direction is determined by 'survival of the fittest'. 'Survival' means accumulation. The inheritable variations that survive accumulate.

Complexity can result from the accumulation of random variations even in nonbiological systems. Crystal growth (e.g., snowflakes) is the best known example of a nonbiological process that develops complexity through accumulation. However, the annealing of crystal defects may in some ways be a better example where complexity grows. Individual defects are probably irreproducible. There are many variations on the slip plane.
Snow flakes don't replicate.

If a crystal is bombarded with high energy radiation, then it develops point defects on an atomic level. Individual atoms are knocked out of position in the crystal lattice, often leaving nearest neighbors alone. Atomic forces are generally short range compared to the lattice constants. Therefore, a high energy particle can knock two maybe three atoms out of position in the lattice at one time. Hypothetically, the point defect is immortal at absolute zero temperature.

Point defects often form while the crystal is solidifying from a fluid. Note every atom sticks the surface in the exact lattice position. So

Point defects include both vacancies and interstitial atoms. Point defects aren't thermodynamically stable. They represents local valleys in the potential energy of the crystal. However, there is generally a peak in potential that prevents them from recombining right away. Point defects have activation energy that prevents them from instantly disappearing. So point defects have a limited lifetime/
Again, the defects don't in and of themselves replicate and accumulate.


Absolute zero temperature is not achievable by the third law of thermodynamics. Defects move around and interact at finite temperatures. No one has been able to achieve temperatures so low that point defects are stationary. They move around and interact. They destroy each otehr by recombining. They catalyze the destruction of other defects. They combine into extremely complex defects that are often relatively stable.

The result is that crystals anneal. Most of the defects disappear over time. Most are destroyed by other defects. However, some defects combine defects that are more stable than the defects that came before them. Some of the defects are more complex than the ones that came before. In fact, the most stable defects are very complex.

There are many recognizable types of defects. Slip planes look like long lines. Some defects look like long corkscrews, spiraling with an atomic diameter. Some of these defects are stable for temperatures below the temperature at which they formed.

The result is that the crystal anneals at finite temperature. Crystal growers often heat the crystal to reduce the number of defects. However, this never destroys all the defects. The defects that remain become more complex.

The result is that most crystals have complex defects that in quasi equilibrium at some finite temperature. The crystal retains point defects, of course. However, these point defects move around at finite temperatures. Stationary defects tend to be very complex.

Atomic scale defects form at very high temperatures. Vibrations knock atoms out of place. So you can't remove defects entirely by heating them. Cycles of heating and cooling make very complex

Few crystals are perfect at achievable temperatures. A few perfect crystals have been made using very complex technology. However, only crystals made of a single element can be made defect free. For example, perfect crystals of silicon have been manufactured. However, crystals made of more than one element can not be made defect free even with the most elaborate technology.

Minerals (i.e., natural crystals) always have defects. without defects. Defects in a mineral are like fingerprints. Every crystal has its own distinct pattern of defects. Defects on an atomic and molecular scale can be identified by various types of spectroscopy.

Complex defects often determine important properties of that crystal. The tempering process creates very complex defects on a molecular scale. Tempered steel is hard due to its slip plane defects. The hardening due to slip plane defects is comparable to the hardening due to carbon and other elements. Iron crystals without defects and impurities is very soft.

So crystal annealing is a good example of a process where 'random variation' together with 'natural selection' creates unique structures of great complexity. Biological evolution is not the only process that creates complex and irreproducible structures.
Whatever.

I don't see anything here that suggests crystal growth and self replicating molecules such as RNA are either both evolving or neither evolving. Only the self replicating RNA can said to be subject to selection pressure and evolving.
 
Back
Top Bottom