Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 251 (653614)
02-23-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:32 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
And yet they just are two different things. We understand evolution. We don't understand abiogenesis. This is one way you can tell them apart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 32 of 251 (653618)
02-23-2012 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:49 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Chuck77 writes:
Are we just gonna go with your last comment? That "they ARE different, that's all that matters?"
That's up to you. Science believes that the ToE stands independently of abiogenesis and we have explained why.
If you think that is doesn't, you have to show us why it doesn't.
Just saying that it SHOULD be part of the ToE isn't an argument. it's just a wish. Tell us why in terms that aren't simply because you want it to be so.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:49 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 33 of 251 (653620)
02-23-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Warthog
02-23-2012 12:36 AM


No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.
I disagree on this point. In my view, evolution becomes an important part of the theory as soon as you've got replication with inheritance and selection. This, most likely, started occurring some time before you got anything we'd recognise as "living".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 12:36 AM Warthog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 7:23 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(1)
Message 34 of 251 (653624)
02-23-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:32 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Chuck, I think I see where you're coming from even though I don't agree.
quote:
I don't think they SHOULD be different. I think ORIGINS should be incorporated with the theory. It's not because there wouldn't be one if it was.
I think you're saying that to understand something, you need to know where it came from as part of that understanding.
As a very broad analogy...
To me it seems like you're looking at it like an engineer needing to understand the materials before building with them - you need to know more than just how to make the mechanical parts fit together. You need to understand how and why they are made that way. Am I close?
To me it seems more like the mechanic who fixes the car. You need to know how the parts you have work together and how to figure out what's going on when they don't do what they should. Although it can be very helpful, the mechanic doesn't need the depth of understanding of materials to do their job.
Although there's no 'fixing' involved in the ToE, understanding it doesn't require us to know how the parts were originally made, it just requires us to see how the parts are working together. We see the machine in action and we have figured out a lot about how it runs.
quote:
My point is regardless of evolution being true or not it avoids one of the most important questions. How did it all start? What evolved from what? Could it have evolved or was it already created like the Bible says?
Evolution doesn't avoid origins - it's just not part of the field. The study of origins is a busy field of its own with lots of research going on.
I remember mathematics at school was one of two subjects that were inescapable. During my entire schooling career, I don't remember once being taught about how the mathematics was discovered i.e. where it came from. All I was taught about was how it works. Who figured it out is part of history, not mathematics.
quote:
Origins is important. It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory. It is because it hampers the TOE.
I don't agree that it is as important as many think. It is certainly interesting. It may never get beyond likely hypotheses and it won't make much difference if it did. Even if a testable mechanism is found, it won't prove or disprove god. Nor will it guarantee that this is how life actually did form on this rock. The best we can really hope for is to prove how it didn't happen.
On a very real level, the only connection the origin of life has with evolution is in supplying the parts.

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 02-25-2012 2:02 AM Warthog has seen this message but not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(1)
Message 35 of 251 (653625)
02-23-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
02-23-2012 6:13 AM


Smartphones are dangerous...
A distraced piggy writes:
No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.
quote:
I disagree on this point. In my view, evolution becomes an important part of the theory as soon as you've got replication with inheritance and selection. This, most likely, started occurring some time before you got anything we'd recognise as "living".
Yeah, you got me - trouble with writing on a phone when you're supposed to be working
I agree with you.
I will point out that there's a hazy line defining life. What, exactly does 'living' mean?
ABE - thinking about it, I'm technically right as prebiotic literally means 'before life'
Edited by Warthog, : being a smartarse

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 02-23-2012 6:13 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2012 10:42 AM Warthog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 36 of 251 (653627)
02-23-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:32 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Origins is important.
I agree, and I don't think you'll find natural scientists heedless of origin of life issues. It's just that replicating molecules don't leave fossils, which means that wildly different techniques are needed to study the origin of life than to study the origin of species, which means you're most likely to find different scientists studying each.
It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory.
I don't think it sweeps it under the rug to label it a different theory; I think it's only a recognition that the origin of life is a different kind of problem than the origin of species, that different tools are needed to study it, and that it's usually chemists, not biologists, who do the studying.
Also, when multiple origin of life models are being discussed, say RNA world vs. lipid world vs. silicate molding, wouldn't it be confusing to have to refer to each model as "the theory of evolution"? I don't see the merit. Obviously the theory of evolution is going to both inform, and be informed by, our models of the origin of life. I just don't see why you think there's no daylight between them. It's not a conspiracy to trick you, Chuck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 37 of 251 (653631)
02-23-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle
02-23-2012 3:09 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
He will just start posting nonsense as he always does and make claims with no evidence.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 3:09 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 38 of 251 (653632)
02-23-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
I believe the literal interpretation of Genesis and believe abiogenesis and evolution should not be seperated.
Well what you believe has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs.
Basically. You are wrong.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 251 (653633)
02-23-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Portillo
02-23-2012 12:05 AM


when does life begin?
Hi Portillo,
Is prebiotic evolution evolution?
You realize that stated this way you are begging the question, yes?
It would be better to term it pre-biotic pre-evolution ... ie the elements of evolution would begin to work as various elements of life come together.
Once you have self-replicating molecules you have the possibility of some of the mechanisms of evolution to work.
Copy errors (mutations) would either mean a non-functional no longer self-replicating molecule or a different self-replicating molecule.
Ones that replicated faster would dominate over those that are slower, ones that are better protected against environmental damage would last longer. Thus some elements of natural selection would begin to operate.
But these elements of evolution do not cause the self-replicating molecules to exist, they come into existence after these molecules exist.
These chemical and pre-evolutionary mechanisms can certainly cause increased complexity in the replicating systems (in part due to the simple truth that simpler systems lose the ability to replicate).
Message 17: If lifeless self-replicating chemicals coalesced together to form a living organism. That is a spectacular example of evolution.
In your opinion, however the mechanisms of evolution would not be causing this to happen, rather the mechanisms of abiogenesis would be responsible. These mechanisms involve chemistry rather than biology.
Of course one of the problems here is defining when life actually begins in this process of developing complexity. This is a much bigger question than it first appears - we have had threads on just this issue (see Definition of Life):
RAZD Message 69: There are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "life" and there are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "non-life" ... and then there are examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories, and there are no currently known criteria that can make this distinction.
Personally, I think the best working definition I've seen, is that life is some physical arrangement of atoms and molecules that is potentially capable of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent.
Note that this allows self-replicating molecules to meet this definition of life, and this falls into the category of {examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories}.
In one sense you could define life to occur once the mechanisms of evolution come into effect, but even there it is a gray area, not a cut and fast delineation.
Message 19: Does that mean that an intelligent agent is a valid alternative theory for the origin of life?
For the appearance of life on earth, not for the origin (obviously, as the life is imported by this intelligent agent). This could either be god/s or aliens.
Do you agree that evolution and the theory of evolution would still apply just as they do today once they have imported life here?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added quote from other thread

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 12:05 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 40 of 251 (653635)
02-23-2012 9:21 AM


Resolving Some Confusion
Hope the message subtitle isn't too ambitious.
Back in Message 14 Portillo asked if prebiotic evolution was evolution and received several answers, but what I think Portillo was really asking was why evolution did not operate on pre-life, and why pre-life had to first become life before evolution shifted into gear.
Evolution, most simply, is descent with modification filtered by natural selection. I think the primary reason we don't feel comfortable saying that evolution operated on pre-life is because we really have no idea if pre-life had a mechanism of descent. Certainly there must have been replication, and certainly the mechanisms of that replication changed over time due to replication error and were filtered by natural selection, but we don't know much else. Pre-life must have gone through many stages, and maybe some of those stages had a recognizable process of descent and some didn't. We just don't know.
But whether one agrees with this characterization or not, or perhaps feels it is insufficiently detailed (e.g., maybe I should have included some clarification about why I don't think replication and descent are necessarily synonymous), Portillo's suspicion that the core principles of evolution (copying error and selection) apply as much to pre-life as they do to life must be labeled correct.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-23-2012 11:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 50 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 02-23-2012 12:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 10:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 251 (653637)
02-23-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Portillo
02-23-2012 2:34 AM


Only when evidence of that Intelligent Agent's existence and the testable model of how that Intelligent Agent influenced events is presented and tested.
Bring in the Intelligent Agent for testing and the model/method that agent used and that idea could be considered.
BUT...
there is evidence, overwhelming evidence, of natural causes, natural processes. So far no one has ever presented any evidence of non-natural or supernatural causes or processes.
Until such evidence is presented the Intelligent Agent idea is an irrelevant fantasy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 2:34 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 42 of 251 (653638)
02-23-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:10 AM


Belief
For the record I do not believe evolution happened. I believe the literal interpretation of Genesis and believe abiogenesis and evolution should not be seperated.
So apparently you will have to deny, misinterpret, or ignore any evidence that conflicts with that belief?
That's not something that one should be proud of.
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 43 of 251 (653639)
02-23-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Warthog
02-23-2012 7:23 AM


Sigh...
Warthog writes:
No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.
Yeah, you got me - trouble with writing on a phone when you're supposed to be working
No. You were right the first time. Hopefully we won't allow this thread to turn into arguing and equivocating over the term evolution, accompanied by "hear no evil" denials by the usual suspects.
The theory of evolution is about the origin of species. That is, descent with variation of things that are alive. We can of course argue about the definition of what is alive, but I expect that most of us put pre-biotic chemical replicators on the non-living side of the line.
Surely abiogenesis hypothesizes that some of the same principles (e.g. selection, reproduction with variation) that are part of the theory of evolution may well have been involved in the origin of life from non-living molecules. But sharing those same principles does not mean that the the ToE applies to the origin of life on earth. And our inability to provide a theory of abiogenesis does not put the thoery of evolution on shaky footing.
Abiogenesis likely did involve changes over long periods of time, and the dictionary does allow us to call such changes evolution. But the origin and development of the earth, the sun, solar/stellar system, and the entire universe have include processes taking billions of years. We should be able to label such changes as evolution without confusing those processes with the Theory of Evolution.
And yet some people, and the most prominent example I can give, is the tax evading fraud and convicted liar Kent Hovind, insist that believers in evolution, i.e. biologists and other life scientists are on the hook for proving the big bang and abiogenesis because they are all "evolution".
Yeah, Hovind, but they aren't all the 'Theory of Evolution.' Why that should be so #$%@# hard to grasp in a written forum ought rightly to be something to ridicule rather than to debate. But C'est la guerre.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 7:23 AM Warthog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 11:53 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 44 of 251 (653643)
02-23-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Portillo
02-23-2012 12:05 AM


Evolution vs Evolution
Hi Portillo,
Is prebiotic evolution evolution?
Well that's an interesting question. One thing that might help is to take a look at defining our terms.
quote:
evolution (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Now if you're asking if prebiotic development is evolution 1, then I would say that it was not an exact fit, but close.
If you asked if prebiotic development were evolution 2, then I would say that yes it was.
If you asked if prebiotic development were evolution 3 however, I would have to say that it definitely wasn't. This sense of the word is completely wrong. The development of pre-genetic chemicals can't, by definition, be evolution
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 12:05 AM Portillo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 45 of 251 (653649)
02-23-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Trixie
02-23-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
trixie writes:
I've had a message from Buzsaw in which he asked me to post the following
Buzsaw writes:
I have never ever alleged that abiogenesis is evolution. My position is emphatically that it MUST happen before evolution can begin. The beginning of life by whatever means is the biopoesis. Once this biopoesis happens evolution can allegedly begin.
If it's at all possible to allow Buz to post in this particular thread, I think we may have a productive discussion, maybe even a learning experience for all.
The thing is that what Buz just wrote to "clarify" his position is precisely what we had all seen him state before that that is precisely what we were all asking him about: what does Buz base that statement on; why does he hold that biopoesis (AKA "abiogenesis") is required for evolution to work? And that is precisely the simple direct and pertinent question that Buz repeatedly and persistently ducked and dodged and refused to even begin to answer.
In general, I would have no problem with him joining. However, I have very little doubt that he will simply continue his blatantly dishonest tricks, making his participation here worse than useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 02-23-2012 3:02 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Perdition, posted 02-23-2012 1:14 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024