Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 80 of 251 (653832)
02-24-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jefferinoopolis
02-24-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
I understand that evolution doesn't require that assumption. However, if life did start with a self-replicating molecule. If we can ever provide enough evidence to conclude that (and I like to think we will) then how do we decide when life began? When did the molecule become the organism? The theories will get a bit tangled up at this point.
We'll determine exactly when chemistry becomes biology around the same time we decide exactly at what wavelength blue shifts into green.
The line is blurry, as an inevitable consequence of the definition of the word "life." We'll know that the precursors were not "alive" when he process began, and that at some point later the results of the process became identifiable as "living." What comes in between will just be indeterminate, as with viruses and prions.
I rather think that the whole "chemistry vs biology" debate is a bunch of irrelevant nonsense anyway - biology is chemistry, much the same way that chemistry is physics. Modern cellular life may be a rather complex set of interdependent chemical chain reactions, but it seems to me that most of the issue is simple anthropomorphic egotism. Humans just don't like the thought of being "not special," so for some reason being "alive" has to be distinguished from "just chemistry."
I don't particularly care about "life." I care about sentience, self-aware minds. I might require "life" to support my mind, but I don't consider myself any more or less morally significant than a hypothetical sentient robot. Obsession over "life" diminishes hypothetically possible forms of sentience that do not fall under any definition of "life." But that's an ethical argument, and for a different thread.

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 78 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 02-24-2012 3:43 PM Jefferinoopolis has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(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 replied

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

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024