Creating life from matter

[Skeptic Ginger]

Forgive me, but I don't see how that is a response to my point.

Dinwar stated that evidence for abiogenesis is not evidence for evolution, and vice-versa, and disproving one (hypothetically) would not disprove the other, etc.

And, I was saying fine, we can remind people about that, on occasion. It is, strictly speaking, true. While adding that they both contribute to the larger picture of natural processes explaining all of life.


How is your question a response to this?

(If you are looking for third options, I might be able to think of a few, anyway. Not that they would be of scientific merit.)

In one direction, were there an alternative to evolution, I agree, it wouldn't disprove abiogenesis. But in the other direction, I don't see how you start evolution without abiogenesis. So I am asking how you start evolution without abiogenesis. Unless you hypothesize that life formed in the Big Bang, it had to start with molecules that formed due to chemical reactions.

To claim evolution theory starts anywhere other than the first replicating molecule(s) [in this case I am referring to making copies the way RNA and DNA do, not just growing by adding more molecules like a crystal does] is a position that would need to assume (IMO) that random mutation and natural selection didn't start with the first replicating strand of RNA or whatever replicating molecule it was.

Random mutation IS a chemical action. Selection pressures are going to impact that molecule whether it was the first replicating strand of RNA or some other as yet unknown replicating molecule. So if you have a chemical process going on that results in a replicating molecule developing, from that point on, selection pressures are going to act along with random mutation. And those selection pressures are no different be they the temperature, the pH or the abundance of certain amino acids or nucleic acids nearby, OR, how beneficial the bacterial wall structure is against a toxic surrounding. One is more complex is all, but selection pressures don't just act on something like a cell wall, they also act directly on the genetic molecules.

It seems to me people in this discussion have a concept of random mutation and selection pressures as something unique that only occurred at some point along the way after replicating molecules appeared. In my opinion this position stems from the archaic view of Darwinian natural selection: survival of the fittest or a survival/reproduction advantage.

Darwin's ideas were incomplete and it turns out natural selection is better described as selection pressures. And many many mutations are passed on that are actually neutral. They weren't all "selected". Even some disadvantaged mutations can be passed on because they weren't bad enough to prevent reproduction. Temperature, pH, and things like that which would impact a replicating molecule are also selection pressures.

A fetus begins as soon as the components come together with conception. As soon as the molecules come together to form a replicating molecule, selection pressures begin impacting that molecule. I understand what you mean that evolution theory would still explain change regardless if the first organism magically appeared. But what I don't get is how you leave the beginning out of evolution theory. You need to start with something or you got nothin'.

 

[Wowbagger]

In one direction, were there an alternative to evolution, I agree, it wouldn't disprove abiogenesis. But in the other direction, I don't see how you start evolution without abiogenesis.

There are specific theoretical processes under which abiogenesis could have occured. Disproving the plausability of any of them would not disprove Evolution.

Even if all the current theories were disproved, that still would not put much of a damper on Evolution, which has its own well-established pile of evidence to work off of. We would just need to go back to the drawing board for abiogenesis.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

At first I read this as creating life from butter. Now it has gotten me curious. Has there been any research into this? I it could be possible in theory.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There are specific theoretical processes under which abiogenesis could have occured. Disproving the plausability of any of them would not disprove Evolution.

Even if all the current theories were disproved, that still would not put much of a damper on Evolution, which has its own well-established pile of evidence to work off of. We would just need to go back to the drawing board for abiogenesis.

Yes, well put. I would add that even if all theories of abiogenesis were disproved, abiogenesis is nevertheless proved (through some unknown process) by the very existence of life.

 

[Wowbagger]

Yes, well put. I would add that even if all theories of abiogenesis were disproved, abiogenesis is nevertheless proved (through some unknown process) by the very existence of life.

This doesn't add much.

A creationist would argue that Creation was proved by the very existence of life. If all current theories of abiogenesis were disproved, how would it improve upon the Creationist argument? (Abiogenesis implies no special creation or intervention from an intelligent entity.)

My answer is that abiogenesis still grants us an empirical framework by which to study the origins of life, scientifically, without introducing any superfluous entities.

But, you see my point? Telling someone that something is proven by the mere existence of something else does not, alone, tell us anything about that something. For one thing, it is too easy for someone to say another thing proves that something else, and you would need some other, better, argument to one-up them.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This doesn't add much.

A creationist would argue that Creation was proved by the very existence of life. If all current theories of abiogenesis were disproved, how would it improve upon the Creationist argument? (Abiogenesis implies no special creation or intervention from an intelligent entity.)

My answer is that abiogenesis still grants us an empirical framework by which to study the origins of life, scientifically, without introducing any superfluous entities.

But, you see my point? Telling someone that something is proven by the mere existence of something else does not, alone, tell us anything about that something. For one thing, it is too easy for someone to say another thing proves that something else, and you would need some other, better, argument to one-up them.

That's not how I see it. My reasoning is as follows:

There seem to be two possibilities for explaining the existence of life:

1. Life came about through some natural processes. Whatever that process was we call it abiogenesis. It is a very important fact that we know natural processes exist since we experience them every moment of our lives and can analyze these processes scientifically.

2. Life came about through some other (non-natural) process. It is an equally important fact that there is not one iota of scientific evidence for any non-natural process.

Hence: Abiogenesis (a natural process) occurred.

In summary, it is my position that before any non-natural (e.g.: deities) phenomena can be taken seriously to explain anything, first the existence of that non-natural phenomena must be demonstrated. Abiogenesis vs. goddidit is just one more case in point. I cannot take any cause seriously until and unless that cause is demonstrated (proven to exist). Scientific evidence rules!

 

[MuDPhuD]

Either life began through natural chemical processes or God did it. What third option am I missing here?

Conception is a different process from fetal development. I think that's the best analogy I can find here. Conception may indeed be an event in itself, but it still marks the beginning of the life of the fetus. Would anyone say fetal development didn't include conception?

Both conception and development are observable events.
Yes, I agree that once the imperfect replicator begins, then Evolution proceeds by the action of selective pressure on variation, just as we observe it to occur now.
The origin of the replicator is unfortunately not amenable to observation. We can only propose plausible mechanisms for what we know had to occur.
However, if a theist wishes (foolishly) to believe your second option (the magic man in the sky created the replicator), it isn't for me to tell him that I know how life began, or as in the OP, that scientists can start life in a flask. There are hugh gaps in our understanding of how it happened and billions of years between us and the events in question. All I can say is that Evolution is a fact, and it unambiguously predicts that life must have begun from non-life. If the mind of the theist chooses to believe it was magic, or "the breath of life" from an impossible preexisting all powerful being then at least he isn't arguing that Evolution is not a fact, or the sky isn't blue. I have hope that his children will see the truth more clearly.

 

[John Hewitt]

To claim evolution theory starts anywhere other than the first replicating molecule(s) [in this case I am referring to making copies the way RNA and DNA do, not just growing by adding more molecules like a crystal does] is a position that would need to assume (IMO) that random mutation and natural selection didn't start with the first replicating strand of RNA or whatever replicating molecule it was.

The replicating molecules seem to me unfortunate introduction of a false premise we have previously discussed.
As I have been previously pointed out, self-replicating molecules seem to me a false assumption; they are theoretically impossible, undemonstrated in the test-tube and not needed for either evolution or abiogenesis.

What my work needs to describe abiogenesis by evolution is large size, a planet, a powerful, oscillatory energy source, a sun and a spin on the planet, and deep time, many millions of years. That seems to me a nicely parsimonious set of assumptions from which to proceed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

and a spin on the planet

Why would a spin on the planet be essential? I could imagine that if a planet was orbiting a star in synchronous rotation (like the moon around the Earth) that life could form, on the bright or dark side, or (probably more likely) around the temperate intermediate area between the two.

 

[Reality Check]

The replicating molecules seem to me unfortunate introduction of a false premise we have previously discussed.
As I have been previously pointed out, self-replicating molecules seem to me a false assumption; they are theoretically impossible, undemonstrated in the test-tube and not needed for either evolution or abiogenesis.

You are wrong:

1. You have shown no theoretical reason why self-replicating molecules are impossible.
2. Self explicating molecules exist in the test tube!

From a similar thread (Is the Concept of "Replicator" a Necessary Aspect of Evolutionary Theory? ): John Hewitt "answers" my questions

Your "answers" were

1. You seem ignorant of what molecular replicator(s) violates Carnot's theorem.
2. You gave a totally wrong calculation that has nothing to do with Carnot's theorem. This is explained more fully in this post.
3. To ignore the fact that molecular replicators exist. There are published papers of scientists working with replicating molecules (e.g. Julius Rebek) who know what they are talking about.
4. You can give no citations to the literature for "chemical oscillations" replicating. This makes this an unsupported idea of your own.

 

[John Hewitt]

Why would a spin on the planet be essential? I could imagine that if a planet was orbiting a star in synchronous rotation (like the moon around the Earth) that life could form, on the bright or dark side, or (probably more likely) around the temperate intermediate area between the two.

That may be possible but it would need to occur by a mechanism other than the one I have advanced. The theory of prebiotic oscillations requires a periodic energy flux.
I am not aware of any alternative mechanism I would regard as viable, so I look forward to others defending their own beliefs.

 

[John Hewitt]

You are wrong:

1. You have shown no theoretical reason why self-replicating molecules are impossible.
2. Self explicating molecules exist in the test tube!

From a similar thread (Is the Concept of "Replicator" a Necessary Aspect of Evolutionary Theory? ): John Hewitt "answers" my questions

Your "answers" were

1. You seem ignorant of what molecular replicator(s) violates Carnot's theorem.
2. You gave a totally wrong calculation that has nothing to do with Carnot's theorem. This is explained more fully in this post.
3. To ignore the fact that molecular replicators exist. There are published papers of scientists working with replicating molecules (e.g. Julius Rebek) who know what they are talking about.
4. You can give no citations to the literature for "chemical oscillations" replicating. This makes this an unsupported idea of your own.

For the record, I have come to view the person who calls himself "Reality Check" as a troll. He posts on these threads but has no evident interest in the answers he is given.
I regard his postings as spam and have adopted a policy of not replying to them.

 

[Reality Check]

For the record, I have come to view the person who calls himself "Reality Check" as a troll. He posts on these threads but has no evident interest in the answers he is given.
I regard his postings as spam and have adopted a policy of not replying to them.

For the record - you are wrong.

I have taken a very evident interest in the answers that you have supplied. You have supplied exactly one.

That is why I could point out two serious flaws in your Carnot theorem argument that you posted

• The calculation you posted is of a thermal gradient and then your argument from argument from incredulity (you think it is too big), not from Carnot's theorem. There is no calculation of the efficiency of the self-replicating molecules to which Carnot's theorem can be applied. This is explained more fully in this post.
• Self-replicating molecules exist !

You have not answered (yet):

1. What is your definition of a "molecular replicator" that violates the Carnot Theorem?
   (in case you have a personal definition that does not match what I have seen in the literature)
   First asked 13 September 2010
2. If the Carnot theorem rules out molecular replicators then how come they exist?
   First asked 20 September 2010
3. Can you cite the literature for "chemical oscillations" replicating?
   First asked 27 September 2010
   If there is no evidence that chemical oscillations replicate then they cannot evolve.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It may be a convenient conversation stopper used to dismiss a Creationist who claims that gaps mean evolution theory is a fail, but claiming abiogenesis and evolution are two different things is akin to confirming intelligent design. Is one suggesting evolution started with a formed cell or some version of it?

I realize it is a common copout among some in the scientific community to claim the two are different things, but I call 'copout' when I see it.

And I see that you agree.

I think it is sometimes necessary to use it. Several reasons:

1) It is a shortcut to the minds of soft creationists. It leaves God a gap, and let them embrace evolution for now. Once they start thinking, ... well one can always hope.

2) It is useful for defusing the Creationist argument "we have never seen life created from non-life, so evolution is false".

3) The lines of argumentation for the two are different; we have objective evidence that evolution happens. Even YECs need to accept some level of evolution unless they want to claim Noah had some 50 million animals on his litle boat. We only have circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis happened (and we only ever will).

Hans

 

[steenkh]

It seems to me people in this discussion have a concept of random mutation and selection pressures as something unique that only occurred at some point along the way after replicating molecules appeared.

Selection pressures will always have existed, but mutation can by definition only happen after replication has occurred. At most, I can see that self-replication is not necessary, but any kind of replication will do, in which case a mutation would be an error in this replication. Is this what you meant?

This discussion interests me because I have never before seen anyone argue that the theory of evolution would have anything to do with abiogenesis. I agree, of course, that abiogenesis is necessary to start evolution (unless life started through an act of magic).

But what I don't get is how you leave the beginning out of evolution theory. You need to start with something or you got nothin'.

What is the beginning of evolution then? I would think it is natural that the theory of evolution starts at the point where the theory is applicable, ie. when selection and mutation sets in. I really cannot see where this is valid before replication exists. Abiogenesis is the description of what leads to up this point, so they do not overlap as far as I can see.

If you feel that the theory is not complete unless we go even further back, then we need to incorporate planet formation, stellar formation and the Big Bang into evolution also.

 

[Zeuzzz]

For the record, I have come to view the person who calls himself "Reality Check" as a troll.

I would not regard him as a troll, more a person who's way too skeptical of anything that is considered "unorthodox".

I regard his postings as spam and have adopted a policy of not replying to them.

Probably would be a good idea to reply to them, if you have the time, just don't expect him to chance his mind even if you rebut his points.

 

[John Hewitt]

I would not regard him as a troll, more a person who's way too skeptical of anything that is considered "unorthodox".

Probably would be a good idea to reply to them, if you have the time, just don't expect him to chance his mind even if you rebut his points.

Here is a link that describes trolling behaviour.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
I think it describes "Reality Check" pretty well.

Please note that I have tried to engage with him previously, at some length, and the only thing that ever came back was the kind of cut-and-paste job you see in his last post. What is more, that level of dialogue seems to be how he behaves in all the threads to which he "contributes."

I have previously looked for threads to which he has posted without this kind of trolling but I can't find one. I have also asked him to identify such a thread but he didn't reply. If anyone on this forum knows of a thread in which "Reality Check" is not simply repeating himself, please point it out.

In any case, no-one is obliged to post to this forum. We can all choose to disengage from it at will, either from any particular poster or even from the entire forum. I choose to disengage from "Reality Check." That is a choice I am making with respect to him and that choice will stand until and unless I perceive some reason to change it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are specific theoretical processes under which abiogenesis could have occured. Disproving the plausability of any of them would not disprove Evolution.

Even if all the current theories were disproved, that still would not put much of a damper on Evolution, which has its own well-established pile of evidence to work off of. We would just need to go back to the drawing board for abiogenesis.

I get that part. But it sounded like you were claiming, if it was proved that nol abiogenesis theory options occurred it would have no impact on evolution theory. And that's what I don't agree with. Because if you claim that no abiogenesis occurred, then you have irreducible complexity and that is not consistent with evolution theory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This doesn't add much.

A creationist would argue that Creation was proved by the very existence of life. If all current theories of abiogenesis were disproved, how would it improve upon the Creationist argument? (Abiogenesis implies no special creation or intervention from an intelligent entity.)

My answer is that abiogenesis still grants us an empirical framework by which to study the origins of life, scientifically, without introducing any superfluous entities.

But, you see my point? Telling someone that something is proven by the mere existence of something else does not, alone, tell us anything about that something. For one thing, it is too easy for someone to say another thing proves that something else, and you would need some other, better, argument to one-up them.

No, I think you miss the point. Evolution theory does not include intelligent design. If one had some other process for the first irreducible organism, evolution theory would have an unacceptable gap. And that's why I said, if it wasn't abiogenesis then the only other option is, gods/magic did it. Unless you had a third option.

Without a third option, I don't see your reasoning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The origin of the replicator is unfortunately not amenable to observation. We can only propose plausible mechanisms for what we know had to occur.

So what?

Why is abiogenesis any more magical than the Big Bang or the unobserved but theorized Earth's core?

You are assigning a magical quality to life and/or humans that you aren't also assigning to the rest of scientific inquiry.