Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 4:37 AM
388 online now:
frako, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 385 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,986 Year: 13,592/21,208 Month: 3,074/3,605 Week: 416/933 Day: 5/56 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
17Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Panda
Member (Idle past 1123 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 226 of 251 (655631)
03-12-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes
03-12-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
NoNukes writes:

Evolution includes process that result in changes in DNA molecules. How is that not chemistry?


That is what I thought too.

Just checkin'.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2012 8:41 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18462
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 227 of 251 (655641)
03-12-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:37 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Panda

Would you not agree that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?

some, but not all, chemical processes are part of some, but not all, biological processes.

some chemical processes are not biological

some biological processes are not chemical

chemistry is not biology, they are different sciences.

Enjoy.


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 220 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:37 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 2:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4638
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 228 of 251 (655649)
03-12-2012 12:16 PM


I think this discussion is probably a foretaste of the arguments to come when we get into the details of abiogenesis - we probably won't be able to see the join between life and no-life.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 229 of 251 (655659)
03-12-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
03-12-2012 9:56 AM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
some biological processes are not chemical

Which ones? The mechanical ones, that themselves are driven by chemistry? The electrical ones, that themselves are driven by chemistry?

Biology is a specific subset of chemistry. What we call "life" is perhaps best described as an extremely complex series of interdependent self-replicating chemical reactions.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 9:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 2:55 PM Rahvin has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18462
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 230 of 251 (655662)
03-12-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rahvin
03-12-2012 2:03 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Rahvin,

Biology is a specific subset of chemistry.

So now we have one claim that chemistry is a subset of biology and your counter.

Which ones?

Population dynamics, changes to the ecology, stochastic processes, neutral drift ...

Enjoy.


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 229 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 2:03 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 3:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 3:41 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 231 of 251 (655664)
03-12-2012 3:10 PM


Chemistry, Biochemistry, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Biochemistry is a subset of chemistry.

Both abiogenesis and evolution involve mechanical and chemical processes. The chemical processes of abiogenesis would be called chemistry. The chemical processes of evolution would be called biochemistry.

--Percy


    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 232 of 251 (655665)
03-12-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by RAZD
03-12-2012 2:55 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
So now we have one claim that chemistry is a subset of biology and your counter.

Right, but the claim that chemistry is a subset of biology is blatantly false. There are innumerable chemical reactions that do not involve biology or even organic compounds. Just as an example, my personal favorite abiotic chemical reaction would be the iron oxide and elemental aluminum reaction that produces elemental iron and aluminum oxide, commonly referred to as "thermite." No biology involved, just the presence of some inorganic compounds in a nice homogenous mixture and a fuse to get it started. If chemistry were a subset of biology, this and every other reaction would of necessity involve some biological process, or at least relate to one.

Biology, on the other hand consists of complex aggregate interdependent self-sustaining chemical reactions. Growth is chemistry. Respiration is chemistry. Reaction to stimuli is chemistry, even in sentient organisms like us. Reproduction is chemistry. Every thought you think, every muscle you move, every bite you eat, every meal digested, every waste product excreted, all of it is chemistry.

We're nothing more than self-replicating chemical entropy machines with an emergent side-property of being consciously aware of our own nature and desperate to deny it in favor of something more "special."

Population dynamics, changes to the ecology, stochastic processes, neutral drift ...

...meaning what, exactly? The heritable traits that determine changes in populations and the response to changing environments are deoxyribonucleic acid. The heritability of those traits is yet more chemistry. Neutral drift is a function of neutral mutations in a population, which in turn is just more chemistry.

At best you can claim that social behaviors and natural selection itself are emergent from the complex self-replicating interdependent chemical reactions that make up all forms of life of which we are aware...but at the end of the day, that's still all we are: chemistry.

Chemistry, of course, being a subset of physics...


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 2:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 3:45 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2012 6:05 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 233 of 251 (655669)
03-12-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by RAZD
03-12-2012 2:55 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Biology is a specific subset of chemistry.

So now we have one claim that chemistry is a subset of biology and your counter.

Panda was talking about biological processes, and those do contain chemical processes. But chemistry is not a subset of biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 2:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 234 of 251 (655670)
03-12-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rahvin
03-12-2012 3:21 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Population dynamics, changes to the ecology, stochastic processes, neutral drift ...

...meaning what, exactly? The heritable traits that determine changes in populations and the response to changing environments are deoxyribonucleic acid. The heritability of those traits is yet more chemistry. Neutral drift is a function of neutral mutations in a population, which in turn is just more chemistry.

At best you can claim that social behaviors and natural selection itself are emergent from the complex self-replicating interdependent chemical reactions that make up all forms of life of which we are aware...but at the end of the day, that's still all we are: chemistry.

I get what you're saying, but you don't need any chemistry to study population dynamics.

Just like you don't need any physics to do a chemistry experiment even tho that what it ultimately boils down to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 3:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18462
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 235 of 251 (655683)
03-12-2012 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by New Cat's Eye
03-12-2012 3:45 PM


Must be a slow day
to bring out all the pedants and pick nitters

I get what you're saying, but you don't need any chemistry to study population dynamics.

Nor can you use chemistry to study population dynamics.

Neutral drift is not a chemical reaction nor is it a chemical process, and it cannot be studied using chemistry..

Life is not just chemistry bubbling in a vat. A hot spring with a lot of chemical reactions going on is not life.

Enjoy.


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 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 5:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6439
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 236 of 251 (655685)
03-12-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Summary
No – abiogenesis would have a slightly closer relationship with evolution than it would with things like geology, because both abiogenesis and evolution concern biology / living things. Another important reason they're not separate is that they both provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism.

Once you hit life, which is biology, abiogenesis stops.

Also, abiogenesis and evolution are no different than any other theory in science where it concerns the "intellectual fulfillment for atheism". Meteorology? We have found natural causes for lightning and rain instead of supernatural causes. Germ theory? That too is caused by natural mechanism, not a supernatural cause. You are pointing your finger at the whole of science because every scientific theory has replaced an older supernatural explanation.

Depending on how evolution is defined, yes. Change over time, within kinds.

I am talking about the way that biologists define biological evolution, not how ignorant creationists define it.

I don’t think it’s because the religion is based on denial, I think it’s because some scientists tweak the evidence to make it appear to contradict religion.

It is creationists that force evolution to contradict religion. It is not biologists who have decided that humans and other mammals sharing a common ancestor contradicts religion. That would be creationists. That would be you. It is you who has decided that your religious beliefs should contradict reality. Scientists are following the evidence. There is no conspiracy theory to trap creationists. They do that all on their own.

Creationism is denial of reality, plain and simple. There is no way around it. When someone claims that there is no evidence that humans and other animals share a common ancestor they are denying the evidence.

After all, a Noble prize winning scientist, Steven Weinberg, said that science should be used to “weaken the hold of religion”. He appeared to receive no criticism whatsoever from the scientific community for that statement.

Scientists really don't spend time commenting on books that other scientists write. You will not find that many scientists who have made comments on Collin's "The Language of God" either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2012 3:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 237 of 251 (655687)
03-12-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
03-12-2012 4:49 PM


Re: Must be a slow day
Well allow me to be even more pedantic...

A biological process is something that happens within a single organism rather than something that occurs on the population level so those *could* all just be chemical processes.

So everybody was right:

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 4:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 238 of 251 (655696)
03-12-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rahvin
03-12-2012 3:21 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi, Rahvin

Rahvin writes:

At best you can claim that social behaviors and natural selection itself are emergent from the complex self-replicating interdependent chemical reactions that make up all forms of life of which we are aware...but at the end of the day, that's still all we are: chemistry.

Reductionism is not always the answer. Life isn't just a substrate: it's also the processes that act on that substrate the shape it into what it is.

There's a seminal paper in ecology that might shed some light on this little side discussion:

Levin SA. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943-1967.

quote:
Abstract.
It is argued that the problem of pattern and scale is the central problem in ecology, unifying population biology and ecosystems science, and marrying basic and applied ecology. Applied challenges, such as the prediction of the ecological causes and consequences of global climate change, require the interfacing of phenomena that occur on very different scales of space, time, and ecological organization. Furthermore, there is no single natural scale at which ecological phenomena should be studied; systems generally show characteristic variability on a range of spatial, temporal, and organizational scales. The observer imposes a perceptual bias, a filter through which the system is viewed. This has fundamental evolutionary significance, since every organism is an "observer" of the environment, and life history adaptations such as dispersal and dormancy alter the perceptual scales of the species, and the observed variability. It likewise has fundamental significance for our own study of ecological systems, since the patterns that are unique to any range of scales will have unique causes and biological consequences. The key to prediction and understanding lies in the elucidation of mechanisms underlying observed patterns. Typically, these mechanisms operate at different scales than those on which the patterns are observed; in some cases, the patterns must be understood as emerging from the collective behaviors of large ensembles of smaller scale units. In other cases, the pattern is imposed by larger scale constraints. Examination of such phenomena requires the study of how pattern and variability change with the scale of description, and the development of laws for simplification, aggregation, and scaling. Examples are given from the marine and terrestrial literatures.

The punch line is that life is organized at a number of different scales (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, ecosystem, etc.), and things that happen at each scale are partially driven by mechanisms that operate uniquely at that scale; side effects of these mechanisms reverberate up and down the scale, so that neither small-scale (i.e. chemical) nor large-scale (i.e. ecological) viewpoints tell the whole story.

It could be argued that chemical processes are what drive ecological processes: for example, lions run fast because the chemistry of the muscles and bones is suitable for fast running. But, it could just as plausibly be argued that the need to run fast (ecological scale) drove the chemistry of the bones and muscles to allow fast running over evolutionary time.

The whole point of natural selection is that life results from more than just chemical reactions: it results from the complex action of abstract imperatives (demographics, social behaviors, etc.) on a chemical substrate. So, I could say that, at the end of the day, we are what those imperatives forced our chemistry to become.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 3:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1571 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 239 of 251 (657702)
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


What do you guys and girls think of this quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky?

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Trixie, posted 03-30-2012 4:23 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 241 by Panda, posted 03-30-2012 4:39 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 242 by Wounded King, posted 03-30-2012 5:41 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 243 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 11:27 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 240 of 251 (657703)
03-30-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Portillo
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


Fine as far as it goes and when you're using evolution in a colloquial sense to mean change over time. However, when you talk about biological evolution you necessarily add descent with modification into the mix since thats what organisms do. The ToE ONLY applies to biological evolution. Abiogenesis is an event.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017