Let's clear this up once and for all

[Washington]

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life --- if it did, we would pwn it back to last Thursday.

Evolution concerns itself with life --- after life appears on the earth --- (or in the universe) --- God and angels [conveniently] excepted.

How's that?

 

[gaara4158]

And what if I and my friends all said that the U.S. Libertarian party is a communist front organization, and you then said no it isn't, to which I replied, "You are making this claim of denial so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why all of us are wrong." Kind of an ass-backward demand isn't it. The burden in the case of the OP ultimately lies with those who make the association between evolution and origins, not those of us who deny it. And so far I have NEVER EVER seen any creationist show such a connection, nor have I ever seen it made in evolutionary literature. So put the burden of proof where it belongs.

Poe's law

 

[Washington]

Poe's law

I can only hope so. Don't believe I've ever run into the guy before

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution does NOT concern itself with origins.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this.

Reason being is this:

1) The barrier between life and non-life is a bit "fuzzy". Likewise, the barrier between abiogenesis and evolution is also fuzzy. A which point do you go from the former to the latter?

2) The origin of life will have a direct consequence on its subsequent evolution. It stands to reason that if there are multiple avenues to produce life, then the consequence of the path chosen will invariably affect the evolution of that life. This will influence the very makeup of life (chemical composition), mechanism for evolutionary change (RNA, DNA, reproduction) and so forth. Since evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with why contemporary life is the way it is, its origin invariably plays a role.

Now granted not every aspect of the ToE will concern itself with life's origins. Much like how if you're studying evolving populations of contemporary species of ants, you might not be so concerned about the origin of invertebrates. But since evolutionary biology in the broadest sense concerns itself with the ultimate tree of life and the interrelations of every living thing on this planet, getting down to that single origin point will eventually be encapsulated by the theory.

 

[Washington]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this.
Reason being is this:
1) The barrier between life and non-life is a bit "fuzzy". Likewise, the barrier between abiogenesis and evolution is also fuzzy. A which point do you go from the former to the latter?

At the point the first living organism evolves into something else. Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.

2) The origin of life will have a direct consequence on its subsequent evolution. It stands to reason that if there are multiple avenues to produce life, then the consequence of the path chosen will invariably affect the evolution of that life. This will influence the very makeup of life (chemical composition), mechanism for evolutionary change (RNA, DNA, reproduction) and so forth. Since evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with why contemporary life is the way it is, its origin invariably plays a role.

To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.

Now granted not every aspect of the ToE will concern itself with life's origins. Much like how if you're studying evolving populations of contemporary species of ants, you might not be so concerned about the origin of invertebrates. But since evolutionary biology in the broadest sense concerns itself with the ultimate tree of life and the interrelations of every living thing on this planet, getting down to that single origin point will eventually be encapsulated by the theory.

But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"

From Wikipedia

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
source
​

 

[gaara4158]

I can only hope so. Don't believe I've ever run into the guy before

I'd assume so, seeing the atheist icon... but his serious persistence has me worried.

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life --- if it did, we would pwn it back to last Thursday.

Evolution concerns itself with life --- after life appears on the earth --- (or in the universe) --- God and angels [conveniently] excepted.

How's that?

That sounded painful

 

[Pete Harcoff]

At the point the first living organism evolves into something else. Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.

The "point", however is that there is no "point" at which you go from non-evolution to evolution. More like a fuzzy blob with some overlap between the two.

For example, what if we have pre-life replicators that undergo change leading to living replicators. Are the pre-life replicators not evolving?

To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.

To use an analogy, if we are concerned with how a car performs on the road, we might not be concerned with how it is built. But ultimately how it is built will affect how it performs.

With evolution we are concerned with how life changes. But how life changes is a consequence of how life is built. And how life is built is a consequence of life's origins.

As biologists probe deeper into the makeup of life and ultimately why everything is the way it is, I think that seperating evolution from abiogenesis is going to become a more problematic task.

 

[Washington]

The "point", however is that there is no "point" at which you go from non-evolution to evolution. More like a fuzzy blob with some overlap between the two.

For example, what if we have pre-life replicators that undergo change leading to living replicators. Are the pre-life replicators not evolving?

They could be, but as it now stands they would not be of interest to evolutionists. This isn't to say that if they existed they would never be, but right now if it doesn't or hasn't lived evolutionists aren't interested.

With evolution we are concerned with how life changes. But how life changes is a consequence of how life is built. And how life is built is a consequence of life's origins.

But different life evolves differently, so there's no single "how life is built." What can I say other than, at the present neither evolutionists or their theories concern themselves with origins. So, while you may think they should, they don't.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

They could be, but as it now stands they would not be of interest to evolutionists. This isn't to say that if they existed they would never be, but right now if it doesn't or hasn't lived evolutionists aren't interested.

ORLY? You speak for all evolutionists now?

From everything I've read on both molecular evolution and abiogenesis (i.e. actual scholarly literature), there is tremendous overlap between origins and subsequent evolution of early life. Again, the problem is there is no rigidly defined barrier between "life" and "non-life". Once you cut everything down to very primitive replication (i.e. precellular life, basic RNA or even more primitive replicators), the barrier is very fuzzy indeed. Especially since contemporary life even down to your basic prokaryotes involves cells and DNA.

But different life evolves differently, so there's no single "how life is built."

Sure there is. It's called DNA.

What can I say other than, at the present neither evolutionists or their theories concern themselves with origins. So, while you may think they should, they don't.

I'm not really sure who these "evolutionists" of which you speak are. However, in a lot of literature I've read (books, articles, research papers) the origin of life and the "building blocks" of life comes up quite a bit. Again, this tends to be moreso when dealing with evolution at a mollecular level. Someone looking into the population genetics of an ant colony isn't going to be concerned with life's origins, but someone concerned with the base functionality of DNA likely will be.

Btw, here's an interesting post on Pharyngula about work done on primitive chemical replicators which involves evolutionary concepts - i.e. selection.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Snippet from an interesting origin of life essay (and bit of a critique on seperation of evolution from origins):

The second statement, splitting the OOL from evolutionary theory, is only technically correct in a sort of legalistic, hairsplitting way. Sure, it’s true that technically, “evolution” only happens once you have life, or at least replicators, but getting from replicators to the last common ancestor is most of what most people think about when they’re thinking about the origin of life, i.e., “where did the evolutionary ancestor of all life today come from?” and all of that is evolution all the way. Furthermore, even the origin of the first classical “replicator” was itself very likely an evolutionary process, in that it occurred in stepwise fashion and not all-at-once, and that the first replicator was likely preceded by various sorts of pseudoreplication, statistical inheritance and kinetic biases. If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about.

(From Panda's Thumb)

 

[AV1611VET]

But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"

Well it's too bad you can't spray Weed-B-Gone on something w/o having to worry about it coming back tougher next year.

On the other hand, Jesus did say that the end-times would be marked by a rise in pestilence.

I'll just be glad when the LORD returns and puts an end to all of this.

 

[Alunyel]

Well it's too bad you can't spray Weed-B-Gone on something w/o having to worry about it coming back tougher next year.

On the other hand, Jesus did say that the end-times would be marked by a rise in pestilence.

I'll just be glad when the LORD returns and puts an end to all of this.

...You're looking forward to the end of the world?

That's not sane...

 

[AV1611VET]

...You're looking forward to the end of the world?

That's not sane...

You should see how we used to be scored when we saw Christian symbols on the Rorschach Test.

 

[Alunyel]

All the same, someone looking forward to the apocalypse can't be said to be of sound mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

All the same, someone looking forward to the apocalypse can't be said to be of sound mind.

I don't think we need to be looking forward to the Apocalypse to be judged as 'not of sound mind'; we just need to believe in that icon that's on many flags, and that should do it.

 

[Gracchus]

Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.

It evolved.

To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.

And that change was to a self-replicating molecule that was not alive.

But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"

From Wikipedia

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
source
​

Chemical evolution is still descent with modification by means of natural selection.

Life (cells) evolved from non-life (non-cells).

 

[Gracchus]

I don't think we need to be looking forward to the Apocalypse to be judged as 'not of sound mind'; we just need to believe in that icon that's on many flags, and that should do it.

When a person tells reality to "take a hike" he is generally considered to be of unsound mind.

(I thought AV1611VET did a [/thread]? )

Goodbye --- /thread

A very bad memory renders a mind unsound, I guess.

 

[ragarth]

Panspermia could be true and evolution would remain unchanged. The Old Ones could have put us upon this world as byproducts of their formless workforce and evolution would remain unchanged. Life could have come from the development of initial replicators through the process of provolution as stated by the RNA World Hypothesis and evolution would remain unchanged. Aliens could have seeded this planet with life and evolution can remain unchanged. Given this, we can conclude that the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. If evolution makes no claims abou the origin of life, then evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

If evolution makes no claims abou the origin of life, then evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.

You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.

Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.

 

[Split Rock]

ORLY? You speak for all evolutionists now?

From everything I've read on both molecular evolution and abiogenesis (i.e. actual scholarly literature), there is tremendous overlap between origins and subsequent evolution of early life. Again, the problem is there is no rigidly defined barrier between "life" and "non-life". Once you cut everything down to very primitive replication (i.e. precellular life, basic RNA or even more primitive replicators), the barrier is very fuzzy indeed. Especially since contemporary life even down to your basic prokaryotes involves cells and DNA.

Hi Pete

I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.