Evolution and abiogenesis

[Belz...]

You mean those birds that look like bumble bees?

Damn. I always confuse these two!

 

[marplots]

Damn. I always confuse these two!

Then there are the ones that look like bats. But my favorite is the plant ones that manage the flight trick using fractals and density lowering. Not so much the rocket-blast version some fungi use.

Jesus, with all these birds flying around, the atmosphere's getting crowded.

 

[truethat]

You both are using examples of things we can actually see and equivocating them to a moment of abiogensis. They are entirely different things.

A better comparison is the way we discuss what T Rexes used their arms for. We can theorize all we want. But we will never truly know.

 

[Belz...]

You both are using examples of things we can actually see and equivocating them to a moment of abiogensis.

No. I can't see the birds taking flight in the past, truethat. I can only assume that they fly in the same way as birds right now.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm not saying we should not explore the science of abiogenesis. But for all intents and purposes all we've discovered is another form instance of abiogenesis.

... It can be wrong inexact in detail for earth, but still right in identifying the general principle.

FTFY. Might I gently reiterate:

Difference between an operating principle and an arbitrary instance of its functioning.

...

When I see a bird take flight, I have no idea if birds that previously took flight have done so in the same way. No way to tell!

Yes, laws and universals, as opposed to particulars. (I think. Mr Cryptic is tough to decipher; must be translating from Franglish.)

 

[kmortis]

Please do not personalize the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Slowvehicle]

You mean those birds that look like bumble bees?

Naw, the "biblical"birds; the ones with echolocation and webbed wings that sleep upside down...

 

[SelfSim]

You are making an unsupported assumption that the chemical reactions occurring in the prebiotic soup are unchanging at the end of the reaction. That's just not true with either prions or ribosomal RNA.

No .. not really.

The idea behind the general idea is: "to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems". That is, its just an alternative way of looking at it all.

Pross' idea really just represents a shift in perspective when it comes to how we think about Abiogenesis and Evolution:

Its essence: all replicating systems, both animate and inanimate, represent elements of a replicator space. However, in contrast to the world of non-replicating systems (all inanimate), where selection is fundamentally thermodynamic, selection within replicator space is effectively kinetic.

In other words, the model he proposes just shifts to being a more generalised replicator space model which also encompasses everything you've been talking about. From this perspective, interesting distinctions may then start appearing (such as the topological one I mentioned in my previous post).

Looks like you've put this same hypothesis forward on the CosmoQuest forum.

Correct, although I'm not necessarily an advocate for it.
However, if it helps to overcome common arguments by providing a common Physics-grounded perspective, without trying to alter any principles, then why not try it on?

Pross still actively lectures on all this. It is only a viewpoint, (or interpretive stance), ie: one way of looking at the nature of all this.

Oh, and he does cite a key example in his paper, (the Spiegelman experiment), which, (admittedly), starts out using a replicating enzyme, RNA strand and activated nucleotides.

Care to cite any research putting this collection of complex word salad to the test? Your bibliography has no links. Surely in the modern age of computers you might post some links.

The Bibliography came from Pross' paper. Links are only a convenience.
See the bottom section here, for the 69 links for his Reference Sources.

Also see the 'Citing Articles' section here (it contains 11 or so links).

I'll just point to KenG's response to you there since it echoes my thoughts.

You seem to think that an hypothesis equals accepted theory. You don't have much more than an hypothesis which is undermined by the fact prions and rRNA are indeed subject to random mutation and selection pressures.

And what Ken had to say is fine by me, also. He was making the point that: "There is no reason why Darwinian principles cannot be applied generally". in an Earth-life context. This is fine by me until it comes to making predictions about the likelihood, (or otherwise) - ie: predictions about Abiogenesis beyond Earth. I don't have any problems with applying 'Evolutionary principles' when it leads to useful insights about Earth-life.

Several of the prion papers you linked to, are behind a paywall.

If your point is that prion behaviors can be interpreted using Evolutionary principles, then: 'yeah ... so what'? It still doesn't mean much in a beyond Earth context. 'A protein', (folded or misfolded), is yet to be discovered by means of Solar System exploration, no? If your point is that the distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution is less apparent in Earth's biosphere, then .. 'Ok, fine .. things just got a little less clear'.

 

[C_Felix]

I live in the Bible Belt.

I have quite a bit of explaining to do - and I have to use smallish words.

All Darwin/Evolution/Survival of the fittest does is provide us with an explination as to why we have the all the species of animals we see in the world today each with their own quirks and adaptations.

Evolution never attempted to answer the question, "Where did life come from"

 

[SelfSim]

... However, given that, if we take the examples Skeptic Ginger has been putting out there in the thread, we have clear examples of molecular replication with changes over generations, yet pre-biotic.

What do you think makes these examples 'pre-biotic'?

 

[jimbob]

What do you think makes these examples 'pre-biotic'?

They are not pre-biotic but they reproduce and are not alive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I am saying is that they are separate questions which could, in principle, have entirely different processes. It will most probably turn out that they are related processes, but the two questions are different, like "how did this person get conceived?" and "how did they grow up this way?" are related but different.

Then you are not arguing against what I said, as I suspected. We're actually in agreement, I think.

You are putting more emphasis on, "the two questions are different," than I am but otherwise yes, we are in agreement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I'm saying is that even if we can replicate everything. Or even if we found a planet that just started developing life on the planet in the very beginning stages, we have no way of knowing if that is the same condition in which abiogenesis occurred for life on Earth.

So to me, even if we make discoveries in the future and have found a way to make abiogenesis happen again, it still doesn't prove that this is how it started for life on earth.

I'm not saying we should not explore the science of abiogenesis. But for all intents and purposes all we've discovered is another form of abiogenesis.

All that argues is, we might find more than one process. It doesn't argue we will never know the process as it occurred on Earth. The conditions of the early Earth are recorded in the oldest rocks along with other evidence about the processes that formed the Earth that we learn from understanding the evolution of solar systems.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You both are using examples of things we can actually see and equivocating them to a moment of abiogensis. They are entirely different things.

A better comparison is the way we discuss what T Rexes used their arms for. We can theorize all we want. But we will never truly know.

I highlighted the nonsense.

Your premise is we know all we are ever going to know about T-rex arm use. That's not a scientific position. That's the position of that guy, whoever he was, that said we should close the patent office, everything that can be invented has been invented.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. I can't see the birds taking flight in the past, truethat. I can only assume that they fly in the same way as birds right now.

You can look at the fossil record, physics and current flight. What is with this Ken Hamm POV that unless you witness it you can't know?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No .. not really.

The idea behind the general idea is: "to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems". That is, its just an alternative way of looking at it all.

Pross' idea really just represents a shift in perspective when it comes to how we think about Abiogenesis and Evolution:

In other words, the model he proposes just shifts to being a more generalised replicator space model which also encompasses everything you've been talking about. From this perspective, interesting distinctions may then start appearing (such as the topological one I mentioned in my previous post).

Correct, although I'm not necessarily an advocate for it.
However, if it helps to overcome common arguments by providing a common Physics-grounded perspective, without trying to alter any principles, then why not try it on?

Pross still actively lectures on all this. It is only a viewpoint, (or interpretive stance), ie: one way of looking at the nature of all this.

Oh, and he does cite a key example in his paper, (the Spiegelman experiment), which, (admittedly), starts out using a replicating enzyme, RNA strand and activated nucleotides.

The Bibliography came from Pross' paper. Links are only a convenience.
See the bottom section here, for the 69 links for his Reference Sources.

Also see the 'Citing Articles' section here (it contains 11 or so links).

And what Ken had to say is fine by me, also. He was making the point that: "There is no reason why Darwinian principles cannot be applied generally". in an Earth-life context. This is fine by me until it comes to making predictions about the likelihood, (or otherwise) - ie: predictions about Abiogenesis beyond Earth. I don't have any problems with applying 'Evolutionary principles' when it leads to useful insights about Earth-life.

Several of the prion papers you linked to, are behind a paywall.

If your point is that prion behaviors can be interpreted using Evolutionary principles, then: 'yeah ... so what'? It still doesn't mean much in a beyond Earth context. 'A protein', (folded or misfolded), is yet to be discovered by means of Solar System exploration, no? If your point is that the distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution is less apparent in Earth's biosphere, then .. 'Ok, fine .. things just got a little less clear'.

You might as well be arguing determinism.

I like my simpler version, evolution is a continuum, and to claim that where the point is on that continuum which divides pre-life (before evolution theory) with post-life (Darwinian evolution theory) also divides two different molecular processes is problematic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evolution never attempted to answer the question, "Where did life come from"

Did you happen to ask Darwin where he thought natural selection first began?

Isn't it a given there had to be a beginning?

 

[SelfSim]

You might as well be arguing determinism.

I like my simpler version, evolution is a continuum, and to claim that where the point is on that continuum which divides pre-life (before evolution theory) with post-life (Darwinian evolution theory) also divides two different molecular processes is problematic.

Of all the studies you posted about prion 'replication' (and consequential mutation, selection, etc), do any of these demonstrate prions performing those functions completely independently from extant Earth-life cells (or added external agents)?

(I ask, because most of the research focus seems to be coming from trying to probe for information about their infectious properties with respect to living cells).

 

[Hlafordlaes]

They are not pre-biotic but they reproduce and are not alive.

Um, yeah, this.

 

[jimbob]

No. I can't see the birds taking flight in the past, truethat. I can only assume that they fly in the same way as birds right now.

You can look at the fossil record, physics and current flight. What is with this Ken Hamm POV that unless you witness it you can't know?

I'm pretty sure that that was Argumemnon's point.

You might as well be arguing determinism.

I like my simpler version, evolution is a continuum, and to claim that where the point is on that continuum which divides pre-life (before evolution theory) with post-life (Darwinian evolution theory) also divides two different molecular processes is problematic.

I agree and given that I've heard evolutionary biologists rightly describing evolution as inevitable wherever you get imperfect self-replication it seems like a pretty well-accepted observation.

We already have circumstantial genetic evidence that LUCA might have relied on its environment to perform some of the critical aspects of life (nutrition, respiration and excretion) so the continuum argument is looking pretty good.

I also liked your allusion to Darwin's "Warm little pond" in a different post