Abiogenesis and Evolution
by MikeGeneAbiogenesis and evolution are different topics. Evolution is supported by a massive amount of evidence and abiogenesis is not. Evolution has many well-established mechanisms while abiogenesis has nothing more than a myriad of speculations supported by slim amounts of circumstantial evidence. Evolution comes with a track record of success; abiogenesis does not. There is a Theory of Evolution; there is no Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution is a core element of biology; abiogenesis is largely ignored. Since the two are not equally supported or understood, why treat them the same by reacting to a denial of abiogeneis as if it were a denial of evolution?
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
To me there are two issues re: abiogenesis and evolution:
1 - The current theory of evolution begins far after the start. It appears to me that it is within the realm of responsibility of evolutionary biology to explain the events from the point of an information-rich replicator to the simplest known independant life-form. Between these two extremes there is a lot of explaining to do. How did we get from something simple to an RNA world. How did protein get integrated into the mix, how was a mechanism to create proteins from information (presumably held in RNA) come into existance, when all such repicators require proteins? IE, the chicken-egg problem still exists in an RNA world. How did ATP Synthase come into existance, and how on earth did reproduction happen before ATP synthase existed.
2 - For the naturalistic (non-telic) paradyme to be complete, a theory of abiogenesis is required. For one to be a scientist and a fulfilled athiest one must currently rely on a promise — the promise that a natural abiogeneis is possible, and that such will be found. I have been around through enough declarations of Eureka! to become highly skeptical.
While it may be technically true that abiogenesis and evolution are different, the term evolution has extended well beyond biology and well into the realm of astro-physics. The philosophical foundations that evolution rests on need a theory of abiogenesis. For evolution to begin, a philosophy of abiogeneis is required.
Bottom line, I wouldn't buy a car if the darn thing didn't even start.
Comment by bFast — March 23, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
This is a dead giveaway that the motivation for the reaction is irritation over someone pointing out the insufficiency of a non-telic explanation.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Oddly, the abiogenesis question doesn't get very far with me. I'd be entirely at home with a 'natural' abiogenesis, as I'd just consider the particular conditions to have been orchestrated (front loaded, I suppose). I don't think finding a so-called naturalistic OoL alters the debate in any way - if RNA world did it (and there's plenty of reasons to doubt that), then RNA world was the tool put to use by a designer.
As for evolution, again, I'm fine with it for similar reasons. Oddly, at the start I was at home with the more orthodox darwinist view of evolution. Since reading up on ID, I've kept my friendly skepticism of the project, but lost my acceptance of the orthodoxy at least insofar as models of evolution go. Between epigenetics, gaia theory, and otherwise, I find myself realizing that data is one thing, and models/explanations are another. Even accepting that populations evolve over time is only the tip of the iceberg to the discussion.
Oh, and Happy Easter everyone.
Comment by nullasalus — March 23, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It's all part of a game.
If you include abiogenesis with evolution, then the neodarwinist will say, "Ah, but abiogenesis is completely different. Nobody ever said we had an answer to that."
If you ask about abiogenesis, then the neodarwinist will talk about some microevolutionary event and say, "Nobody in their right mind doubts evolution. You must be some kind of creationist fundamentalist IDiot, or something."
How to "win arguments" by obscuring the point and deflection. Except one day, come the revolution, it will become apparent that the arguments weren't won at all.
Jaded by the "debate", moi?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — March 24, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Which definition of "Evolution" are you using today MG?
The same presuppositions that lead to "evolution" likewise lead to "abiogenesis." It follows that evidence for one is evidence for the other. All the "massive amount of evidence" which supports evolution also then supports abiogenesis.
The same presuppositions that lead to "evolution" likewise lead to "abiogenesis." It follows that a denial of one is a denial of the other.
Comment by Mung — March 24, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I disagree.
There was far less time between the moment at which it became possible for life to exist on earth and the moment when life actually did exist on earth, than there is between the moment life actually did exist on earth and the present.
The current theory of evolution begins far after the start of what? The start of the possibility of life? This seems to be untrue.
In fact, the sooner that "theorists (also known as speculators)" can legitimately invoke "darwinism" the less ominous seems the problem of hte origin of lfe.
Simply, once replicators exist, and conditions exist by which some replicators are cabaple of "out-replicating" other replicators, all else follows perforce.
Comment by Mung — March 24, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
It boils down to this:
The theory of evolution fails to provide an adequate explanation for the origin and complexity of the structures of living organisms. The "creative power" of "random variation and natural selection" is in serious doubt. There is no reason to think that the evidence for evolution is any different than, or any better than, the evidence for abiogenesis.
My main exhibit is Mike Gene's own book, The Design Matrix.
The most complex thing we have actual evidence of to which we can credit evolution? The modification of an already existing protein.
Comment by Mung — March 24, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
According to you, but not according to the experts.
Doubt by who? Not the mainstream, but I'm sure the mainstream is just a huge conspiracy.
The evidence is completely and totally different. There are huge volumes of evidence including direct observation that prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution occurs. There is no evidence what-so-ever for any particular theory of abiogenesis including "divine creation." So there is every reason in the world to think the evidence for these two things are completely different.
The author of your main exhibit has directly stated both in his book and above that he disagrees with your conclusion.
What single difference other than protein modification separates any two life forms on Earth? Its all made from the same set of amino acids and nucleotides arranged in different patterns.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 24, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
The presuppositions that "lead" to evolution (or quantum mechanics, relativity, tectonic plate theory) don't actually lead anywhere, in and of themselves. Rather, they are presuppositions that amount to following the evidence where the evidence leads. The evidence concerning biological diversity leads to evolution. The evidence concerning biological origins leads nowhere, and may never lead anywhere. Evidence concerning diversity is not the same thing as evidence concerning origins.
By a ratio of some 7 to 1 (or less), you are correct. However, the "1" still represents some 500 million years, at least, which is certainly a "far after the start [of abiogenesis]".
Comment by One Brow — March 25, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
OB
Really?
Comment by chunkdz — March 25, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Mike, one problem I see here is that there is no bright line between "abiogenesis" and "evolution".
For instance, take the genetic code. Did the first replicator come with it, or did replicators get by without it for awhile until it evolved later? Accordingly, if I deny that the genetic code was purely the result of blind material mechanisms, am I a reasonable abiogenesis-doubter, or a troglodyte evolution-denier?
In fact, I don't think there's any hard, non-arbitrary distinction between "evolution" and "abiogenesis" that can be made, at least on the Darwinian model of evolution. According to the theory, all the apparent design exhibited by life is the result of random variations and/or natural selection. Postulating a teleological cause instead, to account for anything along the way, gets you labeled an evolution-denier, even for things like the bacterial flagellum, where Darwinian accounts are, as you put it, "speculations supported by slim amounts of circumstantial evidence." So why shouldn't abiogenesis be included in this as well? In particular, isn't abiogenesis simply the first random mutation event in the series of RM&NS events?
So, the problem isn't exactly that abiogenesis-denial is treated as evolution-denial per se. The root of the problem is that "evolution" is used as a sort-of unifying banner word for a huge myriad of individual hypotheses which together form a comprehensive anti-teleological view of the world. Some of the hypothesis are well-supported, some are mere speculation. Some contradict others. Some don't contain any anti-teleological content on their own, some do.
The actual problem is that these hypotheses are treated as an indivisible whole, so that the questioning of the speculative, poorly supported ones like abiogenesis gets you indiscriminately labeled an "evolution-denier", as if you were issuing a blanket denial of every single hypothesis that goes under "evolution" including the best-supported ones.
To answer your question about why this happens, well, I don't think it makes any sense that a person would call you an "evolution-denier" for questioning abiogenesis, if you assume that the person is only concerned with you accepting established facts. It's sort of akin to being called a "physics-denier" for doubting the multiverse hypothesis (and other anti-teleological hypotheses) as an explanation for the Big Bang. However, if you assume that the person is actually concerned with promoting "evolution" defined as that comprehensive anti-teleological view of the world that I mentioned above, then it makes perfect sense that they would react that way.
Comment by Deuce — March 25, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Just label them back something worse.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 25, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Mung:
I think I should have prefaced my statement with "For naturalism to be correct …" If there is a possible natural scenerio that would procuce a reproducing chemical soup, then for naturalism to be true, the evolutionary biologists would carry the responsibility of explaining how those reproducing molecules evolved to become the archae.
The challenge for the science of abiogenesis to to figure out how to get from non-reproduction to information based reproduction. If they ever get there, then the evolutionary biologists will need to explain how that living soup became the DNA based life we are familiar with. The gap between soup and DNA based life is huge. Most of this gap is a gap in evolutionary biology, not in the science of abiogenesis.
Comment by bFast — March 25, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Deuce,
I think it goes beyond merely questioning abiogenesis - I've always been amazed at the shuffling that goes on, where neo-/darwinism is equated with evolution in its purest form (any biological change at all taking place from generation to generation). Though I'd definitely agree that the fight so often seems to have less to do with clarifying scientific stances and evidence, and more to do with the concern of defending a worldview.
Comment by nullasalus — March 25, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Really really, at least the last I heard. If it lead somewhere, there would be a single, coherent theory of abiogenesis instead of several competing hypotheses.
Comment by One Brow — March 26, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
That's a popular butchering of the theory. It's much more like "the similarities in living things come from common ancestry, the differences in living things come from descent with modification, acted upon by selection."
Comment by One Brow — March 26, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Separate post for a separate point.
There are probably less well-educated or less discriminating people who make that confusion, but much more commonly I see claims of teleology called non-science, as opposed to evolution-denial.
Now, positing a non-material cause would probably be considered anti-evoution. Also, there is a difference being saying "no abiogenesis hypothesis seems well-founded" and "the only explanation for abiogenesis is teleological".
Comment by One Brow — March 26, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
That seems an odd group for the task. I would think the bio-chemists to be much better qualified there.
Comment by One Brow — March 26, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
OB
Sounds like the evidence leads more then one place, not "nowhere".
Comment by chunkdz — March 26, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
So, you're debating the usefulness of a compass that points in ten different directions?
Comment by One Brow — March 27, 2008 @ 10:37 am
March 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Me:
One Brow:
See, I already knew when I wrote that that some smart-aleck was going to come along and "correct" me with an obnoxiously picky and pedantic "your lack of nuance just shows that you don't grasp evolutionary theory" type comment. Why? Because it's an age-old tradition that happens ten times out of ten. Obviously it wasn't my intent to write an encyclopedia entry on the topic, and your nitpick is an attempt to divert things off-topic.
Nevertheless, my succinct definition was better than yours, because:
1) Common descent isn't itself a "cause". It's also implied by natural selection and random variation, and so doesn't need a special mention of its own.
2) You refer to "mutation", whereas I refer more broadly to "variation". My choice of words is better because it captures all those things that countless nit-picking, subject-changing pedants before you have trotted out whenever some design-friendly commenter summarizes Darwinian evolution as RM&NS (genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, retroviruses, etc, etc).
3) You only mention "mutation" and "selection". However, that usage is too vague, because it doesn't distinguish from intentional mutation or selection, which are not Darwinian. My definition is better, because I refer specifically to random mutation and natural selection.
4) Darwinism isn't meant to explain "similarities" and "differences" between organisms per se. There are, for instance, many potential differences caused by environmental rather than genetic factors, which Darwinism isn't meant to account for. There are also similarities which do not trace to common descent (such as birds, ladybugs, and bats all having flight for instance). The main point of Darwinian theory is to account for the design-appearance of living things, which my definition captures and yours doesn't, and which explains why Darwin gave his mechanism a name (natural selection) that's a metaphor for a designing activity.
All that said, here's E.O. Wilson "butchering" evolutionary theory in USA Today: "The second principle is that all life has evolved by random mutation and natural selection." Better send him an email.
Comment by Deuce — March 27, 2008 @ 10:56 am
March 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Gaps in human knowledge do not represent scientific evidence for a denial of abiogenesis, or a claim of design.
One Brow: there is a difference being saying "no abiogenesis hypothesis seems well-founded" and "the only explanation for abiogenesis is teleological".
Whether life began by chance, a natural result of the properties of carbon and water, or a Divine Miracle, the scientific evidence remains strongly supportive of the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't attempt to provide an explanation for the origin of life.
Evolutionary processes are quite capable of creating novel adaptations.
Fins to legs to arms to wings to fins. You know, microevolution.
The evidence tends to indicate a natural process of some sort, but the evidence is scant. There will undoubtedly be surprises as more is discovered.
Common Descent is a fact and a theory.
That is incorrect and demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. There could be natural selection and random variation, but separate origins. Or there could be Common Descent guided by other mechanisms than natural selection and random variation.
No, just heritable variation.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 11:12 am
March 27th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Didn't see this one coming.
Comment by Doug — March 27, 2008 @ 11:26 am
March 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
You might address the point. The Theory of Common Descent is not directly implied by natural selection and random variation. The former is primarily inferred from the nested hierarchy and entailed predictions; the latter is directly observed, and inferred from patterns in evolutionary history. They could be, in principle, both true, one alone true, or neither.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 11:33 am
March 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Common Descent does not directly imply natural selection and random mutation.
Regarding what is implied by natural selection and RM/variation? You added "directly" to what Deuce was saying.
Natural selection and random mutation/variation at least implies common descent. Maybe not necessarily one universal common ancestor…. but an ancestor none the less.
Comment by Doug — March 27, 2008 @ 11:54 am
March 27th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Zachriel:
Why are you assuming a gap? The fact that life is observed coming only from other living organisms is knowledge albeit not the kind welcomed by materialists.
Comment by Bradford — March 27, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
There's clearly a historical gap. There's life now on Earth, but it wasn't always so. There is very little biological evidence from the period of time in question. However, we do know that life evolved from those primitive beginnings.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Zachriel,
Well, if you consider directed panspermia and planet seeding to be as "natural" as spontaneous cell generation, then maybe.
There's a risky prediction for you!
Comment by chunkdz — March 27, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
There is no scientific evidence of "directed panspermia". There is evidence that life evolved from primitive forebearers.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The notion of descent with modification is quite compatible the existence of 10, 50, or one million separate origins. Even most Creationists today accept descent with modification.
Well, your quote of me refers to "modification", not mutation. Modification is, if anything, even braoder than variation, because some modifications don't increase variety.
Well, you sure the me who post you responded to, even if it wasn't the me whose post you quoted.
Well, I'm much more interested in dicussing evolutionary theory than whatever you think is "Darwinian" anyhow. Evolutionary theory is more than robust enough to include mechanisms that would direct modifications, should any arise, as well as those that direct selection (such as sexual selection, kin selection, etc.).
I suppose "living populations" would be more appropriate than "living things". Thank you for the correction.
The differences in wing structure make is clear these arose independently.
Well, I have only read a few dozen of scientific papers, but so far not one has said "here is teh way my experiment addresses an appearance of design in system X". So, as far as I can tell, scientists who actually work with evolutionary theory give no account at all to design-appearance, and that notion only shows up in the works in popular literature. Could you point me to some of the scientific literature where scientists use that type of terminology?
Where was that quote about addressing design-appearance? I missed it in your post.
Comment by One Brow — March 27, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I know this wasn't directed towards me, so forgive the intrusion, but isn't "directed panspermia" a theory on the origins of those "primitive fore-bearers" and doesn't say anything about life evolving from more primitive-yet-still life? The idea being that, as soon as it was possible for life to exist on Earth, it did; therefore the "primitive fore-bearers" or precursors arrived here from elsewhere. Is that basically correct?
Also, what would evidence for "directed panspermia" look like? What is the evidence for 'spontaneous Earth-based origins/abiogenesis' which, I assume, is what you prefer?
We've never observed it happening, we have no models that predict its happening, and for all we know it's only ever happened once. Seems that the conditions that allow the life-from-non-life event to happen most likely happen[ed] elsewhere, given all we do know. No? Why/why not?
I understand that you believe there is no such evidence but, what would you expect to see were [directed panspermia] true? Seems, to me, that that evidence - or lack there-of - is precisely why directed panspermia was proposed.
Not baiting ya or being facetious here, Z… I don't have the chops. Genuine curiosity and ignorance of the nuances and therefore a million questions are all I've got.
Regards.
(PS/edit)Anybody else who knows the stuff in more detail feel free to school me or provide a source so I may do so. I only directed this towards Zachriel because he spoke authoritatively on the subject so I figured he'd probably know what's what. Thanks.
Comment by Rob R. — March 27, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Zachriel,
Circumstantial evidence is scientific evidence. There is circumstantial evidence for directed panspermia.
Yes, circumstantial evidence.
Comment by chunkdz — March 27, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
That's correct. Crick and Orgel conjectured that a civilization might seed nearby stars. Crick has since abandoned the idea due to advances in abiogenetic research (such as the discovery of autocatalysts). Orgel's second rule is that "Evolution is smarter than you are."
That would be the problem for those who wish to consider the idea as more than conjecture. We might look for evidence of seeds in space, or evidence of artifice in the origin of life. There is no such evidence.
One can always fill in the Gap with any manner of fanciful conjectures. So we start with what we know.
* Life is basically chemical in nature.
* Life evolved from more primitive forebearers.
* Macromolecules spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions.
There is no reason to suppose that evolution didn't precede the time before events for which we have direct evidence. At some point, we know that evolutionary theory would no longer apply, but everything points to a common origin. However, because the evidence is scant, we can't rule out many possibilities. By the way, "directed panspermia" merely increases the size of the "warm pond" necessary for natural abiogenesis.
No one knows for sure, but the evidence for a home-grown origin to life is becoming stronger, and there is no significant evidence supporting panspermia. Keep in mind that "directed panspermia" is based on the idea that life will arise some place by natural means, then disperse from there.
But we have strong evidence that even if life was seeded by aliens, the resultant history was evolutionary since then, including all the twists and turns of undirected happenstance. From the view of the cosmic gardener, though, there are probably a variety of generalizations concerning what could be expected from such an agricultural program. But the evidence strongly implies that the evolution of advanced intelligence in a particular lineage of apes would not be a predictable result.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Hypotheses entailing specific and distinguishing empirical predictions is scientific evidence.
You forgot the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Zachriel,
Hypotheses are evidence?
I didn't forget. I was waiting to hear your evidence…
Comment by chunkdz — March 27, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
As I said, specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in a proposed hypothesis.
You made a claim. I have no idea what evidence you are referring to. It's a weak conjecture, abandoned even by the scientist who proposed it.
Comment by Zachriel — March 27, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
It would depend on the nature of the directors. Their nature may exhibit the necessity of telic origin for their existence in ways not obvious to our own nature. In that were true, our world may be a "warm pond", but not theirs.
As for possible sociological impact, if we indeed knew beyond all doubt that some superior extra-terrestrial race was responsible for life on earth, some of us here might feel a bit obliged to find out if part of us survives death, and what the directors expect of us "morally", and what they intend to do, if anything , to offenders and rebels.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 28, 2008 @ 6:41 pm