The origin of evolution.

[rjw]

Hi All,



The following two papers (which are in many ways similar), provide theoretical insight into the evolution of evolution, or perhaps better still, the origin of evolution:-

Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution at

Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution — PNAS

and

Prelife catalysts and replicators at

Prelife catalysts and replicators — Proceedings B


I make no pretense at understanding these at all. They are very mathematical. Nevertheless, it’s an indication as to what is out there.

Based on the summary contained in the first paper:-

We have proposed a mathematical theory for studying the origin of evolution. Our aim was to formulate the simplest possible population dynamics that can produce information and complexity. We began with a “binary soup” where activated monomers form random polymers (binary strings) of any length (Fig. 1). Selection emerges in prelife, if some sequences grow faster than others (Fig. 2). Replication marks the transition from prelife to life, from prevolution to evolution. Prelife allows a continuous origin of life. There is also competition between life and prelife. Life is selected over prelife only if the replication rate is greater than a certain threshold (Fig. 3). Mutation during replication leads to an error threshold between life and prelife. Life can emerge only if the mutation rate is less than a critical value that is proportional to the inverse of the sequence length (Fig. 4). All fundamental equations of evolutionary and ecological dynamics assume replication (31–33), but here, we have explored the dynamical properties of a system before replication and the emergence of replication.

it appears that in their theoretical system:-

1) Selection emerges in their prelife system of random length polymers and activated monomers.

2) Replication and mutation rates define the beginning of life from prelife.

3) Continuous origins of life can occur.

From the summary and conclusion of the second link:-

Summary
Life is based on replication and evolution. But replication cannot be taken for granted. We must ask what there was prior to replication and evolution. How does evolution begin? We have proposed prelife as a generative system that produces information and diversity in the absence of replication. We model prelife as a binary soup of active monomers that form random polymers. ‘Prevolutionary’ dynamics can have mutation and selection prior to replication. Some sequences might have catalytic activity, thereby enhancing the rates of certain prelife reactions. We study the selection criteria for these prelife catalysts. Their catalytic efficiency must be above certain critical values. We find a maintenance threshold and an initiation threshold. The former is a linear function of sequence length, and the latter is an exponential function of sequence length. Therefore, it is extremely hard to select for prelife catalysts that have long sequences. We compare prelife catalysis with a simple model for replication. Assuming fast template-based elongation reactions, we can show that replicators have selection thresholds that are independent of their sequence length. Our calculation demonstrates the efficiency of replication and provides an explanation of why replication was selected over other forms of prelife catalysis.

Conclusion
Our selection thresholds arise, because there is competition between prelife and catalytic prelife, on the one hand, and between prelife and replication (life), on the other hand. The latter is especially interesting because prelife is needed to build the sequences for replication (the replicator and the primer), but then prelife and life compete for the same resources (activated monomers). This tension between prelife and life leads to the origin of evolution.

we find that with selection arising in prelife, what drove the evolution of evolution was the fact that replication proved to be a far more efficient catalyst than the activated monomers. (At least I think that’s how it goes.)


Besides, these papers show:-

References to other work

There are references to a lot of the other background work done over the decades. A neat little summary can be found at the first link:-

The attempt to understand the origin of life has inspired much experimental and theoretical work over the years (1–10). Many of the basic building blocks of life can be produced by simple chemical reactions (11–15). RNA molecules can both store genetic information and act as enzymes (16–24). Fatty acids can self-assemble into vesicles that undergo spontaneous growth and division (25–28).

It’s all there, laid out for you

If you think it’s bunk, then you can see their argument and offer your counters.

You will note that this is vastly different to ID, which spends much of its time grumbling about modern science in general and evolution in particular, but offers nothing like this, other than ‘Science cannot explain X, therefore ID can”, but does not explain X anyway.

It provides a pointer to future experiments in the lab.

Even though the paper is theoretical, mathematical, and “simplistic” it points a way forward for experimenters who deal with real world chemicals and processes. That is, it guides chemists, who may look at this and see that they have all the tools (polymers of random length, activated monomers, etc) to try something out in the test tube.

Assumptions and testing them

All fields of science rely on assumptions. These are often called axioms. However, when the opportunity arises, scientists just love to test their assumptions to see what happens. Note in the summary of the second link that the authors write - “But replication cannot be taken for granted.” That is, scientists show the need to test even the very things they take for granted. Often tests are not done due to lack of resources, because the tools do not (yet) exist, or because no one has yet been able to work out how such a test can be done.



Any way, for you math types, who also have an interest in origin of life developments, go for it.




Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No one has ever observed life spontaneously evolve on Earth or in the laboratory.

 

[rjw]

No one has ever observed life spontaneously evolve on Earth or in the laboratory.

I wasn't aware that any one had made the claim that they had.

No one has observed a new sub-species of an organism arising in the wild either. Nor has anyone observed a fusion reaction inside a star. No one has seen a set of water molecules turning into frost either.

So what point are you trying to make AoS - that water does not naturally turn into frost, that sub-sepecies do not naturally occur, that the generation of sunlight is not a natural process? And this is all so, because no one has observed these things?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No one has observed a new sub-species of an organism arising in the wild either.

Exactly.

Evolution has never been observed therefore it's not scientific.

Nor has anyone observed a fusion reaction inside a star.

Probably because there is none.

The surface of the Sun

No one has seen a set of water molecules turning into frost either.

I disagree.

And this is all so, because no one has observed these things?

Science requires observation; pseudoscience doesn't.

 

[rjw]

I wasn't aware that any one had made the claim that they had.

No one has observed a new sub-species of an organism arising in the wild either. Nor has anyone observed a fusion reaction inside a star. No one has seen a set of water molecules turning into frost either.

So what point are you trying to make AoS - that water does not naturally turn into frost, that sub-sepecies do not naturally occur, that the generation of sunlight is not a natural process? And this is all so, because no one has observed these things?



Regards, Roland

There is a real issue here AoS.

Why refuse to accept something because it is not directly observed but accept other things despite the fact that they are not directly observed.

On the surface, does that make any sense, at all?


Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why refuse to accept something because it is not directly observed but accept other things despite the fact that they are not directly observed.

I only accept things which have been observed.

I do not believe in things which have never been observed e.g. invisible pink unicorns, gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow or any other kind of Dark.

 

[laconicstudent]

Exactly.

Evolution has never been observed therefore it's not scientific.

That isn't what rjw said

I only accept things which have been observed.

I do not believe in things which have never been observed e.g. invisible pink unicorns, gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow or any other kind of Dark.

"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli." Lenski et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, June 10, 2008, vol. 105 no. 23 7899-790.

So by your own statement and this study, you should be accepting Evolution.

 

[rjw]

Exactly.

Evolution has never been observed therefore it's not scientific.

Yet most creationists accept the reality of this kind of "evolution".

I gather you do not.

Probably because there is none.

The surface of the Sun

Probably? How did you work that out?

I disagree.

Then who has seen it?

Science requires observation; pseudoscience doesn't.

Then how come most creationists accept that the evolution of subspecies (kind within kind or variation within kind) is scientific?

How did you observe the inside of a star to know what is "probably" there?

And who has observed water molecules turning into frost?




Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

I only accept things which have been observed.

So you only accept the results of measurement and observation, that is, data.

You never accept any interpretation of those data?

I do not believe in things which have never been observed e.g. invisible pink unicorns, gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow or any other kind of Dark.

See above.



Regards, Roland

 

[Wedjat]

Chemical evolution has been observed though.

 

[rjw]

So you only accept the results of measurement and observation, that is, data.

You never accept any interpretation of those data?

See above.



Regards, Roland

So how about it AoS?

You claim that the inside of the sun is iron. Yet no one has ever held a chunk of the inside of the sun to see this.

All they have observed from the sun are data (wavelengths of light and some particles.). That the data represents iron is an interpretation.

Yet you implicitly claim to have, or that someone has seen iron.


How so?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli." Lenski et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, June 10, 2008, vol. 105 no. 23 7899-790.

So by your own statement and this study, you should be accepting Evolution.

FYI E. Coli are hundreds of millions of years old.

 

[laconicstudent]

FYI E. Coli are hundreds of millions of years old.

Did you read the paper?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Probably? How did you work that out?

The Sun is a ball of Iron!

Then who has seen it?

Any child can observe water turn into ice in a laboratory.

Then how come most creationists accept that the evolution of subspecies (kind within kind or variation within kind) is scientific?

The Dark Lord Satan has clouded their vision my friend.

How did you observe the inside of a star to know what is "probably" there?

The surface of the Sun has been observed to be iron.

The surface of the Sun

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You claim that the inside of the sun is iron. Yet no one has ever held a chunk of the inside of the sun to see this.

The surface of the Sun

 

[UnionJack]

There isn't enough scientific evidence to back up evolution. That's why it's called Darwin's THEORY. Also do those charts explain how matter was created from nothing?

 

[laconicstudent]

There isn't enough scientific evidence to back up evolution.

Yes, there is. Go to a university library sometime and browse the periodical stacks.

That's why it's called Darwin's THEORY.

The same as the Theory of Gravity and Atomic Theory, yes?

Also do those charts explain how matter was created from nothing?

They don't, because that is an entirely different topic.

 

[rjw]

The Sun is a ball of Iron!

That's an interpretation of data. Where/when did they hold the inside of the sun such that they could see that it is iron?

Or are you arguing that because you observed text which says "the sun is a ball of iron" - therefore the sun is a ball of iron? if that is so, then I observe text which says that the sun is a ball of hydrogen. Therefore the sun must be a ball of hydrogen, mustn't it.

Any child can observe water turn into ice in a laboratory.

Yes. But they do not see the process of water turning into ice, do they? They see water and ice. Is this phenomenon directly caused by a natural process or do natural processes not have anything to do with this, rather is is a supernatural process only?

The Dark Lord Satan has clouded their vision my friend.

Do you observe this happening? If so, how?

The surface of the Sun has been observed to be iron.

The surface of the Sun

This is just an interpretation of measured wavelengths of light, isn't it.

Who actually observed the iron, rather than simply interpreted data?




Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

The surface of the Sun

You can link me to that site as often as you wish AoS, but it's still an interpretation of data.

Who has actually seen the iron beyond interpreting data?


AND

The Dark Lord Satan has clouded their vision my friend.

Have you observed this happening? If so, then how?

(You do, after all claim to only believe that which you observe.)




Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

There isn't enough scientific evidence to back up evolution. That's why it's called Darwin's THEORY. Also do those charts explain how matter was created from nothing?

Goodness UnionJack.

Do you say the same about Copernicus' theory? What about atomic theory? The germ theory of disease? Quantum theory?

Who has been teaching you about science?



Regards, Roland