Creating life from matter

[ThunderChunky]

I can decide to only discuss fetal development, but it is a given that the sperm and ovum and fertilization preceded that fetal development.

Unless you are cloning...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unless you are cloning...

So then you'd have a different cell or cells involved and a different mechanism of fertilization. You don't have a fetus appearing out of thin air. We might grow babies from stem cells in the future or use some kind of designer genome technique. The stages of development before a fetus begins to develop cannot be ignored as not part of the fetal development. You can choose to only look at fetal development but you can't just arbitrarily say what came before the fetal cells began to divide are part of fetal development.

I've not argued there isn't a legitimate reason to break the abiogenesis step out of other evolution steps for study. Lots of pieces in evolution theory are likewise studied separately from other aspects of evolution theory.

We look at protein formation and codons as a separate piece of evolution theory from the replication of the genome and the mechanisms of sexual reproduction differs from asexual cell divisions used by microorganisms. Can you take the evolved structures out of the theory or the genomes out of the theory?

Selection pressures not only act on beneficial structures or qualities the organism evolves, like wings vs legs, but selection pressures also act specifically on the genome. For example, some microorganisms turn off their genetic repair mechanisms when exposed to a toxin allowing an increase in mutation rates. And variation in the genome turns out to be a benefit that resulted from selection pressures. Having variation in the genome to draw on when a multi-celled organism which replicates more slowly needs when faced with a hazard is a survival benefit that appears to be selected for.

To say abiogenesis is 'unique' and not part of evolution theory is an arbitrary distinction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, I did not suggest anything about how those replicating molecules occurred. It could be a freak chance, it could be inevitable, given the circumstances of the young Earth, it could be seeded by aliens, or created by God.

I know you did not address selection pressures acting on the precursors to the replicating molecules. I am the one saying evolution theory extends back beyond the first replicating molecules. So tell me how selection pressures that put the pieces in proximity and the selection pressures of the conditions that led to the first replicating molecules differ qualitatively from selection pressures that result in changes to the replicating molecule once formed.

Of course I agree that abiogenesis is a fascinating and necessary theory, but I do not see why it should be part of the theory of evolution, just like I do not think that a book about bicycle development needs to start in the mines.

Your analogy is akin to saying I'm claiming we should start at the Big Bang, or star formation when considering what is or is not part of evolution theory. It's a poor analogy if you intend it to illustrate why abiogenesis is not part of the evolution process.

They are governed by the same genes, whereas abiogenesis and evolution is not governed by the same rules.

This is where I think several people in this thread are drawing a false conclusion. In fact, it is one of the side gripes I have with people who think abiogenesis is not part of evolution theory.

Prove your claim. Describe the difference between selection pressures that acted on pre and post first self replicating molecules. I think people have an outdated misconception about survival to reproduce as the main driver of evolution. That is Darwin's survival of the fittest. More modern versions of natural selection are distinctly different from the cruder version of Mendelian inheritance and Darwin's survival of the fittest. They both had the right idea. But neither had the advantage of today's knowledge of the more specific mechanisms of genetics and what we refer to today as "selection pressures".

And that is exactly what I cannot understand: though one is a precursor to the other, but apart from that, they have nothing in common. The formation of the Solar system is also a necessary precursor for life on Earth, but surely we would not include that in a discussion of evolution?

Once again you use an unrealistic analogy that does not make your case.

When abiogenesis is brought up as a challenge to evolution, it it from a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Those creationists who are making this challenge have it all in one theory, but there lots and lots of religious believers who believe in a god who has created life, and still think that the theory of evolution has got it right. These people think that their god kick-started life, but evolution took over. They are not wrong about this: evolution really works exactly according to specification in this scenario.

(emphasis mine)

You sooo illustrate my point here. The purpose of claiming evolution theory doesn't have to deal with the beginning of life is, if we keep abiogenesis separate we can continue to pretend god beliefs and science are perfectly compatible. Once you acknowledge that evolution theory doesn't leave room for a magical beginning, life is as natural as the rest of the Universe, life is not consistent with the god myths, you eliminate yet one more door for theists to fit the evidence to their conclusions.

When they mix up abiogenesis and evolution, I point out that they cannot blame a theory for something it does not cover, but that I am willing to discuss abiogenesis. It is important to distinguish because if we do not, we will be forced to deal with silliness such as "rocks mutating into life", along with the usual "cats mutating into horses".

Forgive me, but if that is part of your rationale, that's a surprisingly wimpy position on your part. If you can't defend evolution theory against ludicrous challenges, I suggest you need a bit more evolution theory study.

Although I do not mind talking about it, I do think that we are overstating the case when we claim that we have evidence for abiogenesis. We cannot see any obstacles to abiogenesis, and we can see several possible pathways, but we certainly do not have positive evidence that it happened. This is quite contrary to evolution where w have positive evidence for it happening ranging from a distant past right up to now. Even if we could produce an abiogenesis event in a lab, we still would not have proof that we had reproduced the correct abiogenesis event.

My personal opinion is the research for how abiogenesis occurred is a lot further along that you seem to be aware of. But even if it weren't, the idea evolution theory explains the diversity of life on Earth but somehow falls short of providing overwhelming evidence the process of life developing was natural from start to finish is absurd. You can only take your position if you are still clinging to the possibility magic or gods were involved.

And there is no evidence of any such thing. Life is natural, not magical. The Universe is natural and mythical gods were not involved in creating it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

To say abiogenesis is 'unique' and not part of evolution theory is an arbitrary distinction.

If I understand you correctly, I think you are saying that abiogenesis is part of the big picture of evolution, but that not every question about evolution is going to relate to it. To you, evolution is both the origin and change of life over time. I see the connection there, and is does make sense, but I guess it comes down to semantics because other people leave off that origin bit (and you say that is arbitrary of them).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I understand you correctly, I think you are saying that abiogenesis is part of the big picture of evolution, but that not every question about evolution is going to relate to it. To you, evolution is both the origin and change of life over time. I see the connection there, and is does make sense, but I guess it comes down to semantics because other people leave off that origin bit (and you say that is arbitrary of them).

Semantics, arbitrary divisions, not a big deal. You say tomato, I say tomaato.

Add in the extraneous 'issues' and you have the real problem.

We would not be having this discussion if people treated certain scientific subjects as rationally as they treat other scientific subjects.

Humans vs other animals: All kinds of baggage there left over from claiming humans were above and unique. God made us, yadda yadda. Claims were many: only humans have language, only humans use tools, only humans have moral influenced behavior, and so on. All of these initial claims have been refuted by observations which were apparently ignored for a very long time.

Astronomy Earth centered baggage issues were mostly resolved before we were born.

And then we come to evolution theory. What should be no different from any other scientific field is chock full of baggage. And that is what this whole issue really is about. Some people are refusing to recognize abiogenesis is the only conclusion one can draw given the fact evolution theory is unequivocally established. But some people can't let go of the 'special human' 'made by god' baggage and other people don't want to confront the issue so they simply segregate it from evolution and ignore the elephant in the room.

 

[steenkh]

I know you did not address selection pressures acting on the precursors to the replicating molecules. I am the one saying evolution theory extends back beyond the first replicating molecules. So tell me how selection pressures that put the pieces in proximity and the selection pressures of the conditions that led to the first replicating molecules differ qualitatively from selection pressures that result in changes to the replicating molecule once formed.

The selection pressures did not but without replication, there is no evolution.

Your analogy is akin to saying I'm claiming we should start at the Big Bang, or star formation when considering what is or is not part of evolution theory. It's a poor analogy if you intend it to illustrate why abiogenesis is not part of the evolution process.

It was not an analogy, it was reductio ad absurdum, intended to show that there is no natural lower boundary for when evolution should start.

This is where I think several people in this thread are drawing a false conclusion. In fact, it is one of the side gripes I have with people who think abiogenesis is not part of evolution theory.

How can they be guided by the same rules when only half of the rules (ie the selection rules) apply to abiogenesis. Not everything that is undergoing selection is undergoing evolution.

Prove your claim. Describe the difference between selection pressures that acted on pre and post first self replicating molecules.

There is no difference. As I said, abiogenesis has no replication, so evolution cannot apply.

You sooo illustrate my point here. The purpose of claiming evolution theory doesn't have to deal with the beginning of life is, if we keep abiogenesis separate we can continue to pretend god beliefs and science are perfectly compatible.

I do not think that the theory of evolution should be reformulated only to use it as tool against theism. The theory of evolution should be what we can gather from the evidence. There will always be holes in our knowledge, or we would not have a need for scientists, and as long as there are holes in our knowledge, there will be religious believers who fill out the holes with their god. Pretending that there is not a hole at abiogenesis seems to be dishonest.

Once you acknowledge that evolution theory doesn't leave room for a magical beginning, life is as natural as the rest of the Universe, life is not consistent with the god myths, you eliminate yet one more door for theists to fit the evidence to their conclusions.

How can you eliminate theism without evidence? As I mentioned, even with a viable pathway for abiogenesis, we still do not have the evidence that this was how it happened. A god of the gaps could still have done it.

When I was taught religion as a child, one priest described evolution as being guided by God, and we can think of this god as doing it by either exerting a magical selection pressure, or nudging mutation by tiny in a way that he preferred, for instance by sending a cosmic ray at the right moment, or causing an interesting replication failure. You can simply not use evolution as a weapon against religion, except against dogmatic, biblical beliefs.

Forgive me, but if that is part of your rationale, that's a surprisingly wimpy position on your part. If you can't defend evolution theory against ludicrous challenges, I suggest you need a bit more evolution theory study.

OK, I am a wimp. I cannot defend evolution by extending it to claim that inanimate matter is undergoing mutation and selection in the same way as life. Or for that matter that we have evidence that it has happened.

My personal opinion is the research for how abiogenesis occurred is a lot further along that you seem to be aware of. But even if it weren't, the idea evolution theory explains the diversity of life on Earth but somehow falls short of providing overwhelming evidence the process of life developing was natural from start to finish is absurd.

I am claiming that evolution is valid from start to finish! What I am not claiming is that evolution is even applicable before the start!

As for the research in abiogenesis, I strongly doubt that this research will provide evidence for how it happened. I have only heard about research in how it could have happened. This will be evidence against those who claim that a god is necessary for life to start, but not against those who merely claim that their god did it.

You can only take your position if you are still clinging to the possibility magic or gods were involved.

My position is that of using Occam's Razor to cut away superfluous gods from physics, and I have confidence that there are no gaps that a god must fill out, leaving the believers with the weaker position of filling the gaps with theirs because they could be there.

If I had claimed that evolution was applicable for non-life, I would in effect be claiming that non-life replicated and mutated, after which selection pressure eventually led to life. This is not what I think happened, and I believe that using the same theory to cover how non-life became life and how life developed into the biological world we know today is stretching the theory beyond the breaking point.

Your argument that we must do this in order to oppose theism seems to me to be irrelevant.

Or perhaps we are not talking about the same theory of evolution? I tend to think of "evolution" as being the specific theory that is describing the development of life, but it is possible that you are talking about about some other evolution that covers both, because it is not specifically using both mutation and selection.

And there is no evidence of any such thing. Life is natural, not magical. The Universe is natural and mythical gods were not involved in creating it.

Amen!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The selection pressures did not but without replication, there is no evolution.

So you don't think construction of the first self replicating molecule can be described as having evolved from it's components given certain conditions (aka selection pressures)? Do you see the problem with your concept of evolution? Because I do.

If a replicating molecule, say RNA, can evolve once it is complete, when did it start evolving? When the RNA strand contained one nucleic acid? When it contained 2? Not until it had a chain of [X] number of nucleic acids? Or did it begin to evolve as the molecule was initially assembled?

Here's the chemical structure of RNA for reference. Did the first one of these molecules only begin evolving once it was constructed? What would you label then, the first stages of molecule formation? Something other than evolution?

I don't have an issue with labeling evolution as starting once the replicating molecule formed. There's no reason to get into the semantics of what the definition of 'evolve' is. It's not a fetus until conception. But how the ovum and sperm formed and how conception occurred cannot be divorced from fetal development with a wave of the hand. They aren't completely separate things. It's a division on a continuum.

It was not an analogy, it was reductio ad absurdum, intended to show that there is no natural lower boundary for when evolution should start.

Regardless of the point you sought to make, you used a bad analogy to try to make that point. The analogy did not make your case because it was a bad analogy.

How can they be guided by the same rules when only half of the rules (ie the selection rules) apply to abiogenesis. Not everything that is undergoing selection is undergoing evolution.

The ovum and sperm are not growing until fertilization occurs. It's still a continuum before and after fertilization. You can choose to only talk about fetal development and you can describe how it differs from pre-fertilization. It is valid to do that. But you cannot divorce fetal development from what came before as if the two are unconnected and/or unrelated.

There is no difference. As I said, abiogenesis has no replication, so evolution cannot apply.

Sperm and ovum are not growing. They are still on a continuum with fetal development, rather than being completely segregated.

I do not think that the theory of evolution should be reformulated only to use it as tool against theism. The theory of evolution should be what we can gather from the evidence. There will always be holes in our knowledge, or we would not have a need for scientists, and as long as there are holes in our knowledge, there will be religious believers who fill out the holes with their god. Pretending that there is not a hole at abiogenesis seems to be dishonest.

You are on the other side of the coin here. The side I am on is the one preventing theist myths from encroaching on science. I am not trying to use science to refute theism, (though there are times I certainly do use science to address god myths such as the evidence against irreducible complexity).

Where theism is distorting the science is when the abiogenesis knowledge gap is cited as refuting evolution theory or as supporting irreducible complexity. One reply is to support the position that the knowledge gap does not invite a gap god explanation. But another response is to say, we don't need to include that part of the continuum in evolution theory.

The motives behind giving the second answer are where theism is having an undue influence on how we view biological science. It might be the scientist who wants to placate theists by not challenging their god myths. Or it might be the theist scientist who wants to leave room for his/her own god belief in the story. And these expressions that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory then set a trend which other skeptics and scientists adopt and amplify.

How can you eliminate theism without evidence? As I mentioned, even with a viable pathway for abiogenesis, we still do not have the evidence that this was how it happened. A god of the gaps could still have done it.

This borders on a separate topic. I believe there is evidence that gods don't exist, not merely "no evidence" they do exist. The evidence is overwhelming that people invented god myths. Again, what stops many skeptics from concluding that ALL gods are mythical beings is the problem of theism influencing science. We draw conclusions all the time without proof of the negative. But not when it comes to concluding the evidence clearly supports gods are myths people invented.

But just taking the gap god hypothesis on its face, how many times do you need to see this hypothesis fail before you quit proposing it.

When I was taught religion as a child, one priest described evolution as being guided by God, and we can think of this god as doing it by either exerting a magical selection pressure, or nudging mutation by tiny in a way that he preferred, for instance by sending a cosmic ray at the right moment, or causing an interesting replication failure. You can simply not use evolution as a weapon against religion, except against dogmatic, biblical beliefs.

Gap god hypotheses have all failed. You can't just make things up without any evidence and say, I'm going to propose this hypothesis, and you cannot disprove it, therefore it is a valid hypothesis. That is not how the scientific process works. If we used the criteria that any UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is valid, the scientific process would be rendered useless with an overwhelming infusion of nonsense.

OK, I am a wimp. I cannot defend evolution by extending it to claim that inanimate matter is undergoing mutation and selection in the same way as life. Or for that matter that we have evidence that it has happened.

This is a bit of a straw man mixed with some truth. I have not claimed, "undergoing mutation and selection in the same way". I have said abiogenesis is on a continuum with evolution, it isn't a separate event.

But as for evidence is has happened, look around you. We are here. We don't have evidence life was created in the Big Bang. There are no other options except magic and gap god hypotheses. We don't insert gap gods and magic as plausible hypotheses in other fields of science. Why should we insert them here?

I am claiming that evolution is valid from start to finish! What I am not claiming is that evolution is even applicable before the start!

I understand there is a legit position for addressing abiogenesis as a separate process from evolution in evolution theory. We would agree if you weren't insisting something other than abiogenesis could account for that first replicating molecule.

As for the research in abiogenesis, I strongly doubt that this research will provide evidence for how it happened. I have only heard about research in how it could have happened. This will be evidence against those who claim that a god is necessary for life to start, but not against those who merely claim that their god did it.

Nothing in the way of evidence is going to convince a lot of people that all gods are mythical beings. Scientific evidence is not basis of many people's beliefs.

What evidence do you have that science cannot ever determine the process by which the first evolving molecules or evolving life occurred? What other as yet unexplained natural phenomena do you apply this prediction to?

My position is that of using Occam's Razor to cut away superfluous gods from physics, and I have confidence that there are no gaps that a god must fill out, leaving the believers with the weaker position of filling the gaps with theirs because they could be there.

Got any gap god hypotheses that have ever turned out to be the correct hypothesis?

If I had claimed that evolution was applicable for non-life, I would in effect be claiming that non-life replicated and mutated, after which selection pressure eventually led to life. This is not what I think happened, and I believe that using the same theory to cover how non-life became life and how life developed into the biological world we know today is stretching the theory beyond the breaking point.

This is a straw man. The processes you describe would need to lead to life forms. Processes affecting non-life which don't result in life evolving are not on a continuum with evolution.

Your argument that we must do this in order to oppose theism seems to me to be irrelevant.

Again, this is a bit of a straw man with some truth in it. The goal is not to oppose theism. The goal is to quit allowing theism to influence the science.

Or perhaps we are not talking about the same theory of evolution? I tend to think of "evolution" as being the specific theory that is describing the development of life, but it is possible that you are talking about about some other evolution that covers both, because it is not specifically using both mutation and selection.

I think my above answers address this point. I have no more to add.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by steenkh
When I was taught religion as a child, one priest described evolution as being guided by God, and we can think of this god as doing it by either exerting a magical selection pressure, or nudging mutation by tiny in a way that he preferred, for instance by sending a cosmic ray at the right moment, or causing an interesting replication failure.

If one were to claim a cause for any physical phenomenon, to be credible, the reality (existence) of that cause must first be established, then the causality can be examined.
Example:
Consider any disease caused by a (theoretical) microbe. The existence of that microbe must be scientifically established before that hypothesis will become accepted fact. Once the existence of some associated virus is scientifically established, then the disease mechanism can be sought and studied.

And so for any hypothesized cause for anything! Deities "guiding" evolution or causing abiogenesis could only be a viable notion if there were some scientific demonstration for the existence of deities. There is not one single iota of scientific evidence for such super-spirits, consequently, their existence can never be part of any scientific discussion.

You can simply not use evolution as a weapon against religion, except against dogmatic, biblical beliefs.

It depends: If someone were to use the existence and diversity of life as evidence for deities, the theory of evolution (and the vast/conclusive body of supporting evidence) would certainly contradict any claim that deities were needed to explain life.

 

[steenkh]

So you don't think construction of the first self replicating molecule can be described as having evolved from it's components given certain conditions (aka selection pressures)? Do you see the problem with your concept of evolution? Because I do.

It seems that I am right in thinking that when you are talking abiut "evolution" you are not talking about the "theory of evolution" but of general evolution.

If a replicating molecule, say RNA, can evolve once it is complete, when did it start evolving? When the RNA strand contained one nucleic acid? When it contained 2? Not until it had a chain of [X] number of nucleic acids? Or did it begin to evolve as the molecule was initially assembled?

The obvious answer is that it started evolving from the point where it was able to replicate. Again, this is not in the sense of "change", but in the sense of the ToE, that it was replicating, and some of the replicas were different from other replicas.

Here's the chemical structure of RNA for reference. Did the first one of these molecules only begin evolving once it was constructed? What would you label then, the first stages of molecule formation? Something other than evolution?

No, evolution would do fine, just like cars can be said to evolve. But it would not have any relevance to the ToE.

Regardless of the point you sought to make, you used a bad analogy to try to make that point. The analogy did not make your case because it was a bad analogy.

Perhaps you did not get the point because you thought it was an analogy.

Where theism is distorting the science is when the abiogenesis knowledge gap is cited as refuting evolution theory or as supporting irreducible complexity. One reply is to support the position that the knowledge gap does not invite a gap god explanation. But another response is to say, we don't need to include that part of the continuum in evolution theory.

We agree here. I also use both arguments.

The motives behind giving the second answer are where theism is having an undue influence on how we view biological science. It might be the scientist who wants to placate theists by not challenging their god myths. Or it might be the theist scientist who wants to leave room for his/her own god belief in the story. And these expressions that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory then set a trend which other skeptics and scientists adopt and amplify.

In my view it looks like you are making theism dictate science because you insist on using a well-defined theory on something it is not defined for, expressly because you do not want a gap for theism to creep in.

The situation is analogous (and this time I really use an analogy) to insisting of treating flight in the same way, whether it is at 10 km above the Earth, or 80 km above the Earth. They are both termed flight, but one is governed by aerodynamics, and the other solely by the laws of gravity.

This borders on a separate topic. I believe there is evidence that gods don't exist, not merely "no evidence" they do exist.

If you ever would want to expand on this, I would be very interested to hear it. I am a regular contributor at the Atheistic Forum, and this is one argument we atheists have never found against the theists.

The evidence is overwhelming that people invented god myths. Again, what stops many skeptics from concluding that ALL gods are mythical beings is the problem of theism influencing science. We draw conclusions all the time without proof of the negative. But not when it comes to concluding the evidence clearly supports gods are myths people invented.

This argument has been tried, but even though atheists see the obvious logic here, the theists universally reject it as being only applicable to the other gods

But just taking the gap god hypothesis on its face, how many times do you need to see this hypothesis fail before you quit proposing it.

Indeed.

Gap god hypotheses have all failed. You can't just make things up without any evidence and say, I'm going to propose this hypothesis, and you cannot disprove it, therefore it is a valid hypothesis. That is not how the scientific process works. If we used the criteria that any UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is valid, the scientific process would be rendered useless with an overwhelming infusion of nonsense.

We agree, but the problem is that no theist want to admit that their own god is a god of the gaps. If he is not, then he is of course vulnerable to other arguments, but that is a different topic.

This is a bit of a straw man mixed with some truth. I have not claimed, "undergoing mutation and selection in the same way". I have said abiogenesis is on a continuum with evolution, it isn't a separate event.

Yes, I have concluded that you are not limiting evolution to a specific theory, but using the term in the general sense.

But as for evidence is has happened, look around you. We are here. We don't have evidence life was created in the Big Bang. There are no other options except magic and gap god hypotheses. We don't insert gap gods and magic as plausible hypotheses in other fields of science. Why should we insert them here?

Exactly. Occam's Razor, and all that.

I understand there is a legit position for addressing abiogenesis as a separate process from evolution in evolution theory. We would agree if you weren't insisting something other than abiogenesis could account for that first replicating molecule.

Sorry, where did I say that something other than abiogenesis could account for the first replicating molecule? My whole point has been that abiogenesis, and not the Theory of Evolution accounts for the first replicating molecule.

What evidence do you have that science cannot ever determine the process by which the first evolving molecules or evolving life occurred? What other as yet unexplained natural phenomena do you apply this prediction to?

I did not say I had evidence, or that it would be impossible for science to determine the exactly which process was responsible for the abiogenesis event. I merely said that I doubted it.

This is a straw man. The processes you describe would need to lead to life forms. Processes affecting non-life which don't result in life evolving are not on a continuum with evolution.

You are right. It was a strawman because at that point I still thought we were talking about the same thing when we use the word "evolution".

Scientists are often distressed when theists prefer to refer to "evolution" as "darwinism", but sometimes I wonder if it would not have been a term that was less likely to result in misunderstandings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems that I am right in thinking that when you are talking abiut "evolution" you are not talking about the "theory of evolution" but of general evolution.

I can understand your reasoning but it is wrong when it comes to how I view the "theory of evolution".

The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com define the theory of evolution as

- (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

They include "origin" as important to the theory.

The WordIQ has a bit longer discussion of the definition of the theory of evolution:

... As the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetics has become nearly universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations....

I bolded the essence of the definition this author settled on after a preceding discussion. "Natural selection and genetics" does not include 'reproduction', though it is implied. But the focus is on the genome and/or the replicating molecules, not the act of replication.

New Scientist, in its Introduction to Evolution describes the theory thusly:

Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents of earlier species, and that we all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest".

Most people find the concept that "all species are related" is key to the theory. In other words, common descent.

The Berkeley web page on evolution describes evolution theory as:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification..... The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor...

They include common ancestor as key.

Trying to sift out the essence in these definitions of the theory of evolution we have: 1) origin, 2) common descent, and, 3) modification.

I think we all agree that the theory of evolution encompasses modification and common descent. But what about 'origin'?

Origin of species, or, origin of life? Are they the same thing? If you wanted to define the theory of evolution as Darwin did, "the origin of species", you might argue that evolution theory doesn't start until the first whole organism begins replicating. Prior to that it is something other than evolution in the context of the theory occurring.

The argument here is one side saying life originated and evolution theory then addresses what happened after. My argument is that the theory of evolution includes the origin of life. Abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution just as change over time is part of it.

To leave out the beginning as something which is not part of the theory is to claim the theory of evolution is only about change over time, and not about the origin of life. When you add in, common descent, you have to pick a place to start that descent. I include abiogenesis as the first stage in the theory of evolution.

You describe the theory of evolution as starting at the first replicating molecule. To make evolution theory start at the first replicating molecule, you define selection as not occurring until reproduction. I do believe others in this discussion might be putting the beginning of evolution somewhere further along though no one has defined that place or given a good explanation for why they chose it. Instead it would seem they are content to leave 'first life' vague and ill-defined.

It makes more sense to me to include the beginning of life, aka the origin, in the theory and to divide the part of the theory which deals with change over time as beginning with the first replicating molecules and the origin as including abiogenesis. To ignore the beginning and only include change might sound good to some people, especially given "evolution" is in the title of the theory. Such a limited view ignores the key element and that is, origin. Perhaps it would be useful to call it, 'the theory of origin and evolution of life', but that is rather cumbersome.

From abiogenesis to change with modification is a continuum. To narrowly define the theory of evolution as excluding the origin of life on Earth and arbitrarily limit the theory only to descent with modification is a choice, not a mandate.

The first replicating molecule is a good place to define the beginning of certain aspect of the mechanisms in the theory of evolution just as fertilization is the beginning of the fetus. Before fertilization, the process of development of the ovum and sperm is not the same process exactly as after fertilization.


Theories encompass whole systems, not just single mechanisms. The theory of plate tectonics includes earthquakes and volcanoes as well as convection currents within the Earth. It includes mountain building as well as rifts in the crust and deep trenches. All of these aspects are related by continental drift. But at the same time, the fact that the Hawaiian volcanoes are different from the Cascade volcanoes while both differ from volcanos in Iceland does not mean the theory of plate tectonics should be broken up into smaller theories.

...Perhaps you did not get the point because you thought it was an analogy.

I got the point, but you are wrong. And you might want to look up the meaning of analogy, but I digress.

...In my view it looks like you are making theism dictate science because you insist on using a well-defined theory on something it is not defined for, expressly because you do not want a gap for theism to creep in.

The situation is analogous (and this time I really use an analogy) to insisting of treating flight in the same way, whether it is at 10 km above the Earth, or 80 km above the Earth. They are both termed flight, but one is governed by aerodynamics, and the other solely by the laws of gravity.

This analogy is as disconnected as your other. See what I said above regarding the scope of theories. I view the theory of evolution as broader in scope than others are defining it here.

...If you ever would want to expand on this, I would be very interested to hear it. I am a regular contributor at the Atheistic Forum, and this is one argument we atheists have never found against the theists.

Yes, I am trying to shift this paradigm.

...This argument has been tried, but even though atheists see the obvious logic here, the theists universally reject it as being only applicable to the other gods

I'm not trying an argument. You make it sound as if because it fails to convince theists they believe in a mythical god my position has no merit. My position has merit because the evidence is overwhelming supporting the conclusion and utterly absent refuting the conclusion. It is also a testable hypothesis that has been confirmed with observation in recent history with the development of the Cargo Cults.

...My whole point has been that abiogenesis, and not the Theory of Evolution accounts for the first replicating molecule.

It takes these discussions sometimes for my thoughts to better gel. It boils down to defining the scope of the theory of evolution. I view the theory as having a broader scope than people who exclude the origin of life from the the theory and claim it only encompasses the mechanism of diversity.

..I did not say I had evidence, or that it would be impossible for science to determine the exactly which process was responsible for the abiogenesis event. I merely said that I doubted it.

What exactly is it you doubt? That we are close to solving the question or that we can answer the question?

..You are right. It was a strawman because at that point I still thought we were talking about the same thing when we use the word "evolution".

Scientists are often distressed when theists prefer to refer to "evolution" as "darwinism", but sometimes I wonder if it would not have been a term that was less likely to result in misunderstandings.

You see the theory of evolution as narrow in scope and I see it as including origin and change with modification.


Origin of Species, the first detailed outline of the theory of evolution includes that word, "origin". Where along the way was 'origin' dropped and only common descent and change with modification included in the theory? Perhaps we need two theories, the theory of life and the theory of how life changes.

 

[steenkh]

The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com define the theory of evolution asThey include "origin" as important to the theory.

I am not sure if "origin" is a clear reference to abiogenesis, or to the first instance of life.

The WordIQ has a bit longer discussion of the definition of the theory of evolution:I bolded the essence of the definition this author settled on after a preceding discussion. "Natural selection and genetics" does not include 'reproduction', though it is implied. But the focus is on the genome and/or the replicating molecules, not the act of replication.

I would also like to point to this statement further down in the same article:

Modern synthesis theory has three major aspects:

The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

I might add that a biologist once scolded me for treating Common Descent as being part of the Theory of Evolution. There is no pleasing everyone!

To be frank, abiogenesis is discussed later in the article, but it is not clear if it is being discussed as part of evolution, or as supporting evidence for evolution.

Trying to sift out the essence in these definitions of the theory of evolution we have: 1) origin, 2) common descent, and, 3) modification.

Yes, I agree with the caveat that some biologists think that Common Descent is related, but not part of Evolution, just like abiogenesis. Like you, I tend to treat Common Descent as an aspect of evolution, but I now try to expressly state when I mean Common Descent. The distinction makes sense, because just like evolution would still work just as before if there was no abiogenesis event, evolution will also work as specified if there was more then one separate abiogenesis event (if this was the case, natural selection seems to have killed off the other events on Earth, but if Earth was seeded from outside, it is possible that we might one day find life that was based on other abiogenesis events, and they would still be subject to evolution)

The argument here is one side saying life originated and evolution theory then addresses what happened after. My argument is that the theory of evolution includes the origin of life. Abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution just as change over time is part of it.

To leave out the beginning as something which is not part of the theory is to claim the theory of evolution is only about change over time, and not about the origin of life. When you add in, common descent, you have to pick a place to start that descent. I include abiogenesis as the first stage in the theory of evolution.

I think we will just have to disagree here. I do understand why you think as you do, I just think that the narrow definition is more practical, because we then have only one set of rules for each theory.

You describe the theory of evolution as starting at the first replicating molecule. To make evolution theory start at the first replicating molecule, you define selection as not occurring until reproduction.

No, I do not! We have been through this before: I agree completely that selection occurs all the time, and it happens all the time for inanimate matters even today (you can say that, for instance, pure iron is selected against, because the atmosphere constantly converts it to rust).

It makes more sense to me to include the beginning of life, aka the origin, in the theory and to divide the part of the theory which deals with change over time as beginning with the first replicating molecules and the origin as including abiogenesis. To ignore the beginning and only include change might sound good to some people, especially given "evolution" is in the title of the theory. Such a limited view ignores the key element and that is, origin. Perhaps it would be useful to call it, 'the theory of origin and evolution of life', but that is rather cumbersome.

I agree. However, there is also the problem of evidence, that is rather scanty for the earliest times, and when we get to abiogenesis we - at least currently - rely completely on inference.

From abiogenesis to change with modification is a continuum. To narrowly define the theory of evolution as excluding the origin of life on Earth and arbitrarily limit the theory only to descent with modification is a choice, not a mandate.

Agreed. But you can also put the same sentence as being "To narrowly define the theory of evolution as including the origin of life on Earth and arbitrarily expand the theory to include the origin of life is a choice, not a mandate."
Both are equally valid but we seem to prefer different versions. I will admit that your preference has the advantage of being more intuitive, so that it coincides more with what creationists expect - but you were the one to say that we should not conform to creationists!

I got the point, but you are wrong. And you might want to look up the meaning of analogy, but I digress.

You mean, like this one (from WordIQ): "An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity."

I'm not trying an argument. You make it sound as if because it fails to convince theists they believe in a mythical god my position has no merit.

Yes, that sounded wrong. Of course your position has merit and your argument was right. What I meant was that some arguments seem to hit theists harder, although I must admit that no argument I know of has ever caused theists to change their mind (the rule that God is always right seems to kick in whenever they are in trouble). The problem is of course that despite what theists might claim, they are emotionally attached to their religion, and not rationally attached.

It takes these discussions sometimes for my thoughts to better gel. It boils down to defining the scope of the theory of evolution. I view the theory as having a broader scope than people who exclude the origin of life from the the theory and claim it only encompasses the mechanism of diversity.

I understand. I am also glad that we have had this discussion, because it made me understand your position, even if I do not agree with it. Perhaps I will find a way to accommodate both views in my arguments.

What exactly is it you doubt? That we are close to solving the question or that we can answer the question?

This depends on the question. I feel confident that we will be able to create life from scratch at some point, and I also feel confident that we will be able to do it under circumstances that will resemble those of the early Earth.

This will answer a lot of questions, and we can use Occam's Razor with even more confidence than before.

However, I strongly doubt that we will ever be able to prove this was a recreation of the original abiogenesis event. More than one method to produce life from scratch might exist, and I have difficulty in seeing how we should find evidence to prove that we have found the right one. But of course, in my life time, we have found many proofs that were regarded as impossible a generation ago ...

Perhaps we need two theories, the theory of life and the theory of how life changes.

I think we do, but the cat is already out of the bag

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I might add that a biologist once scolded me for treating Common Descent as being part of the Theory of Evolution.

I'm pretty sure common descent is key to evolution theory, steenkh. Perhaps others in the thread might weigh in if they are still with us.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I got the point, but you are wrong. And you might want to look up the meaning of analogy, but I digress.

You mean, like this one (from WordIQ): "An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity."

You are really having a hard time with this one. Wow.

Perhaps a review will help"

Of course I agree that abiogenesis is a fascinating and necessary theory, but I do not see why it should be part of the theory of evolution, just like I do not think that a book about bicycle development needs to start in the mines.

Your analogy is akin to saying I'm claiming we should start at the Big Bang, or star formation when considering what is or is not part of evolution theory. It's a poor analogy if you intend it to illustrate why abiogenesis is not part of the evolution process.

The formation of the Solar system is also a necessary precursor for life on Earth, but surely we would not include that in a discussion of evolution?
Once again you use an unrealistic analogy that does not make your case.

My analogy was the ovum and the sperm in relation to the fetus.
Your analogy was to akin to claiming that I was equating carbon molecules in relation to the fetus.

Your analogy was not close either to the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution or my analogy of the relationship of the ovum and sperm (abiogenesis) to the fetus (evolution after fertilization).

 

[Perpetual Student]

I can see this two ways:
1.
The theory of evolution is really the theory of natural selection. Imperfect replication offers the opportunity for the chance occurrence of a characteristic, which may then survive and contribute to diversity.
So, a strict interpretation of this perspective would exclude the amalgamation of atoms that lead to the first replicating molecule(s), since no natural selection was involved.
Hence: Evolution and abiogenesis are separate and distinct (but related) concepts.
2.
If we survey the various models for abiogenesis, they all involve the chance coming together of organic compounds (metabolizing or replicating) with a myriad of approaches involving proteins, RNA, crystals, etc. in various proposed environments providing the necessary energy input. In any case, can it not be said that however that chance molecular occurrence happened (whether once or millions of times), that those (or that) molecule(s) survived because of some “favorable” characteristic so a “natural selection” must have occurred?
Hence Evolution and abiogenesis are different manifestations of the same fundamental idea of natural selection.
****************************
Take your pick!

 

[steenkh]

Perhaps a review will help"

You are right, I had forgotten that when you did not react to my original reductio ad absurdum about going back to stellar formation, etc, I tried an analogy about bicycles. Sorry I missed that.