No time for Evolution?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Prove me wrong then, because the prevailing scientific view is that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". If you can't prove me wrong. Then I am afraid it is Hitchen's Razor for you

Wait a second. Either I'm completely gullible and ignorant to some kind of fast one you're trying to pull, or you did not notice that your "prevailing scientific view" link seems to support your sparring partner. Did you read it or did a joke go completely over my head

The opening paragraph from your link:

I heard it said recently that “Evolution” and “Origin of life” are two separate issues. I know that this is a falsehood, and I’ll discuss in a moment how and why it is not true. But first, I checked around with a few people that I know and love, and found out that some of them assumed this was true. I think it is something that has been said enough times that if you are not personally engaged in the research or just don’t think about it enough, you can easily assume that this is what the experts say. But they don’t.

scienceblogs.com...

So, if you think “Origin of Life” is not evolution because it is somehow different from any one specific aspect of evolution (like natural selection) then you are being unfair to Origin of Life by treating its different-ness as an excuse for excluding it. Shame on you.

It seems that one argument is that the Origin of Life is not evolution because evolution is natural selection, diversification of species, and so on, and none of those things could have happened without life already existing, and it does not really exist at the moment of origin. This, however, is not correct for two reasons. The first (and probably most important) reason is that we don’t know what the origin if life was like. So, to characterize it as an instant when some stuff goes from being not-life to being life is fantasy. You don’t know that this is how it happened, so you can’t use this made-up trait of the origin of life to say that it is not evolution. The second reason is a bit more tenuous; Most models for the origin of life are very Darwinian. Most have some selection going on, most have some diversification going on, and all, by necessity and definition, have change over time going on. And, it is organic change, because the stuff of life before the primordial animation was organic stuff.

The origin of life is part of evolutionary biology.

Seriously Noinden, please clue me in on your joke. What Laden says makes a lot of sense to me

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I'm going to have to disagree, as these threads are read by more than those who partake in the discussion. The thread is based off of the OP in many ways. Any how moving on....

The article actually says it was 200 million (or so) years earlier than thought, rather than faster. Its a quibble I know, but the point really is, we don't know when "life" first happened, so we are guessing. I'm not surprised that earlier instances have been discovered, and I am sure earlier still will be found.

We can't talk much about what they evolved from as we don't actually know (no fossils) what they were. When people talk about "gaps in evolution", they tend to focus on these gaps in the fossil record. They are not gaps which will sink the theory, they are gaps to hopefully be filled.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Thanks for that, it was supposed to be a test to see if they read, and understand things, or just ignore them. PM's are your friend, I don't bite.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'm confused here. 200 million less years to do what, exactly? Go from the first life (single celled organism) to this discovery (single celled organism). What's the issue with that? It doesn't seem like much really changed in that time.

Not single cell to single cell. 200mm less years to go from soup to single cell.

originally posted by: Barcs
Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the terminology but I have always understood abiogenesis as the emergence of life from its basic components. Then you have RNA World hypothesis, which is the entire process to go from pre-RNA to RNA to simple DNA to complex modern DNA (which could be billions of years). I thought the second one referred to what happened after abiogenesis, and wouldn't technically be part of it, although it would seem that evolution would affect RNA World hypothesis.

It really all depends Barcs, on whether or not you consider stand alone molecules like pre- RNA, RNA, and DNA to be living things. I think most people would consider them not to be alive. Now unless I've misunderstood your last sentence, you seem compelled to apply evolutionary principles to them none the less. The point is there's no real reason to separate any of it. It's all one continuum.

originally posted by: Barcs
When asked about natural selection and abiogenesis, a certain scenario pops into my head. To me, the idea that abiogenesis forming simple organisms happened only once doesn't quite jive. The way I see it, there may have been an area where all the right conditions for life were present and it produced not just one organism, but tons of them via abiogenesis on a regular basis.

Well this is another fun aspect to speculate about. Where on earth did first life emerge? Was it forming all over the planet simultaneously or just in one special location?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Prove me wrong then, because the prevailing scientific view is that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". If you can't prove me wrong. Then I am afraid it is Hitchen's Razor for you

Wait a second. Either I'm completely gullible and ignorant to some kind of fast one you're trying to pull, or you did not notice that your "prevailing scientific view" link seems to support your sparring partner. Did you read it or did a joke go completely over my head

The opening paragraph from your link:

I heard it said recently that “Evolution” and “Origin of life” are two separate issues. I know that this is a falsehood, and I’ll discuss in a moment how and why it is not true. But first, I checked around with a few people that I know and love, and found out that some of them assumed this was true. I think it is something that has been said enough times that if you are not personally engaged in the research or just don’t think about it enough, you can easily assume that this is what the experts say. But they don’t.

scienceblogs.com...

So, if you think “Origin of Life” is not evolution because it is somehow different from any one specific aspect of evolution (like natural selection) then you are being unfair to Origin of Life by treating its different-ness as an excuse for excluding it. Shame on you.

It seems that one argument is that the Origin of Life is not evolution because evolution is natural selection, diversification of species, and so on, and none of those things could have happened without life already existing, and it does not really exist at the moment of origin. This, however, is not correct for two reasons. The first (and probably most important) reason is that we don’t know what the origin if life was like. So, to characterize it as an instant when some stuff goes from being not-life to being life is fantasy. You don’t know that this is how it happened, so you can’t use this made-up trait of the origin of life to say that it is not evolution. The second reason is a bit more tenuous; Most models for the origin of life are very Darwinian. Most have some selection going on, most have some diversification going on, and all, by necessity and definition, have change over time going on. And, it is organic change, because the stuff of life before the primordial animation was organic stuff.

The origin of life is part of evolutionary biology.

Seriously Noinden, please clue me in on your joke. What Laden says makes a lot of sense to me

It's Darwinist logic LOL!

Look, the only reason to say the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution is because of belief. If you say the origin of life is connected to evolution then you have to admit that evolution is incomplete because as these guys have said, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

a reply to: neoholographic

And Neo did not read it. Thus proving that he's not reading, nor will he read anything posted. His (or is it hers) mind is closed, and only the dogma that they wish to expound has room in there.

But in reply to this.

Logic dictates that evolution of life, is a separate topic (and thus theory) from how life began, from the constituent chemicals.

Not that you will read any of this, and will reply with at least one line of screaming

a reply to: Noinden
Agree to disagree.

The most intelligible way I know how to express this

If the earliest known lifeforms previous to this discovery were 3.48 billion years old, and this one indicates that life actually already existed some 3.7 billion years ago, then this would mean whatever the process that gave way to these microbes happened at a much faster rate than we thought (which is why it happened earlier).

a reply to: Noinden

I'm sorry, I could only assume you knew what you were doing.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

No worries, and it still worked Peoples inner muppet will out

a reply to: PhotonEffect

People always assume evolution is linear (not saying you are). Change happened is the simplest way to express it. Beyond that, there is too little data to comment on.

a reply to: neoholographic

It seems logical to me that it should be considered all one process, a continuum.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

People always assume evolution is linear (not saying you are). Change happened is the simplest way to express it. Beyond that, there is too little data to comment on.

How would linearity reconcile with extinction?

a reply to: Noinden

Indeed it did, almost too well

a reply to: Phage

Well I guess it comes to a short sharp stop, like many lines (but so do other progressions) The question would be, does the line pass through zero, is it more than two data points, how many more data points, and can it extrapolate well?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Two questions remain unanswered from neo.

(a) Is english their first language? The structure of the posts are "off" to me, and I've taught english as a second language tertiary students, and members of my pagan church.
(b) Do they have a learning disability. Be it dislexia, or something else.

The comprehension of what is being asked seems lacking.

It could also be zero bothers given

a reply to: Noinden

Now now, be nice. We're not all novelists here.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Wow, you have sunk to a new low. The desparation is evident.

Your rhetoric is evident. In every post, you make numerous appeals like this but show no justification.

No evolution REQUIRES LIFE those are your words. Erosion doesn't require a rock.

Such dishonest BS. Erosion can't happen without things that can be eroded. End of argument.

The point is, the origin of erosion is things like water, wind or ice not the rock. Like you said, evolution REQUIRES LIFE.

I don't think you repeated the point about me saying evolution requires life enough. It's only been about 20 times or so on the last page. I don't understand it, can you please repeat it an extra 2 dozen times?

Can't you make a coherent argument without repeating yourself constantly? I know what I said. Evolution does require life, but that doesn't mean we don't understand it. Erosion requires things that can be eroded just like evolution requires things that can evolve.

So just like you need to know about water, rain and ice which is REQUIRED for erosion and to know the rates of erosion, you need to know the Origin of Life which you say is REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION.

Wrong and now you are just being intentionally obtuse.

You need to learn about water, rain and ice which is required for erosion.

You need to learn about radiation and genetic mutations which are required for evolution.

How do you still not grasp this very basic point? It's not complicated in the least, you are making invalid comparisons and being completely dishonest about them. You are invoking the origin of life saying that it might one day update our knowledge of evolution, but still have not explained why.

There is no magical aspect of evolution that will change based on how life originated. Sure, it would improve our overall understanding of everything, but the mechanics of evolution are verified and confirmed. Arguing against it with such juvenile rhetoric doesn't help your case.

This paper talks about EARLY EVOLUTION as it relates to an underlying rule that might be present in Codons. So if this were to turn out to be correct it would definitely change our understanding of evolution today deriving from early evolution in the hypothetical prebiotic goo.

You still don't get it. Evolution is not the origin of life. There is no evolution of prebiotic goo or whatever BS metaphor you want to use. Explain precisely how this changes anything about genetic mutation or natural selection (actual evolution). It's funny how you literally have NO arguments whatsoever that actually talk about evolution. You just said that abiogenesis changes our understanding of evolution because it changes abiogenesis. What about evolution?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

Let's take 2 scenarios:

1) the most primitive form of life arose from non-life through yet to be discovered means

2) the most primitive form of life was created by your chosen god

Please explain the functional difference in our understanding of genetic changes sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity between the two scenarios.

This will undoubtedly be ignored while Neo repeats that evolution requires life 10 times and repeats the same exact argument over and over with no end in site. The guy clearly doesn't know how to debate and doesn't know a single thing about evolution or science. It's comical watching him try, but it's a bit annoying how he just keeps repeating himself.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Not single cell to single cell. 200mm less years to go from soup to single cell.

That's not evolution, though. You are making the same mistake as Neo. That's not 200 million less years for evolution. That's 200m less years for abiogenesis, and it's also very presumptive because we don't know when the "soup" began "brewing".

originally posted by: Barcs
It really all depends Barcs, on whether or not you consider stand alone molecules like pre- RNA, RNA, and DNA to be living things. I think most people would consider them not to be alive. Now unless I've misunderstood your last sentence, you seem compelled to apply evolutionary principles to them none the less. The point is there's no real reason to separate any of it. It's all one continuum.

Natural selection could be a factor, yes, but it really depends on how you use the term. At first there weren't any alleles to select for, since reproduction did not occur until after abiogenesis. Sure there were environmental pressures, but not technically natural selection. I wasn't trying to apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, but to the increase in complexity of RNA / DNA over time (RNA World). Yes, it's one continuum, so to speak, but it's not one process. You could say that about the big bang as well. It's one continuum from big bang to modern humans, but that doesn't mean that the big bang functions via the same mechanisms or has anything to do with evolution of life.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I am being nice, either gives them an out for ignoring questions. Otherwise it is complete and utter willful ignorance. That is the only sin in life.