The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It is the accepted one. Why does this cause you problems?

a reply to: Noinden

What definition is that exactly?

a reply to: Noinden

Because I don't see the issue with considering that the origin of life was a process that may not have been unlike evolution of life now.

a reply to: rnaa

That is basicaly exactly what I meant. At the point where 'just a bunch of chemicals' becomes life is the crux of the matter.

Ok. But again, I think we agree that there wasn't a single "point", per se, when a stew of chemicals suddenly gave way to life. It was a process that I tend to think may not have been unlike an evolutionary one.

If you're proponent of the RNA world scenario, then it's plausible that RNA evolved from something else, which evolved from something else ad infinitum. Genetically? No. But what we see now (i.e. as organisms) are higher levels of that self-organization – structured products of the same original process that has been ongoing for billions of years. And yes, before any of it could have happened the building blocks of those molecules themselves had to first come together into meaningful proto-structures. Did this happen all over the planet at the same time, or perhaps in one location? Another question to consider...

However populations are said to evolve when the population's gene pool, as represented by the random mutations that occur in the individual members of that population are filtered by natural selection. That is pretty much the story of evolution.

Well I disagree. And I won't push us into a debate about this since it will stray off the main topic. But I'll say just this to address your points. The devil is in the details. Evolution proceeds by genetic variation yes, but not necessarily by mutations alone. There seems to be this prevailing idea that variability is caused by mutation only, or that these two terms are interchangeable. They aren't. Genetic variation can result from other means. Natural selection is also just one aspect, and does not define evolution, and shouldn't. This notion that "random mutation + natural selection = evolution" stems from what the MS says. I think it's misleading and leaves out a lot. It's an antiquated view imo and needs to be reevaluated in light of what modern research is indicating. Of course it's this line of thinking that many folks here combat me on. Oh well.

The end result of the Abiogenesis process is the "existence of life", where-as the initial condition for the Evolutionary process is "existence of life".

This is poetic in its own right, and I like it. But it still creates a delineation between the two ideas when perhaps it's not required or needed. Not to mention that we don't fully understand abiogenesis to be able to call it something separate. I get the tendency to equate the start of evolution with the start of life. But how far back does one go when they want to understand when evolution began? Is it with LUCA, RNA? If so, what about the origination of LUCA and how it evolved? Or how RNA evolved? The question will naturally keep pushing us back.

I don't see how identifying different fields of study has anything to do with an agenda other than to classify the body of knowledge into managable pieces.

I think if you were to read what some other posters are saying in this thread and others you will get the gist of my gripe. This separation tends to be used to advance certain viewpoints. And sure, the classification of a broad subject makes sense until it causes a disjunct of ideas.

a reply to: rnaa

However you have to realize that the very first living organisms were very unlike even the most simple of forms in the modern world. Not only were they not cells, they were not formed in an oxygen rich environment.

What are viruses?

For abiogenesis research to be correct it must lead to life as we know it; for evolution research to be correct it must begin with life as we know it.

I get it. Where does life begin, again?

For example, one side 'claims' that there is no such thing as evolution despite the clear observable existential fact. That is not an argument of equal merit within which one can find a middle ground.

I agree 100%. I didn't mean to suggest creationists deserve equal merit from the debating points. But the tactics used by both sides are very much the same. And forces a meaningless discussion to go round and round and round.

You certainly need a well tuned BS meter sometimes to detect the difference between 'good' science following the data where it goes and the exploitation of it to enfuse Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - I grant you that.

yes

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Hall & Hallgrímsson 2008, pp. 4–6

HOW life came about, bears no relevance to how it changes.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You may not, however you are showing a distinct lacking in understanding of both evolution, and abiogenesis/proteogenesis. So I am leery of your opinion.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That then makes you a hypocrite. Your argument is thus invalid. Oh and as I repeatedly say, one does not have to be an atheist to agree that evolution is real, or abiogenisis/proteogenisis occurred.

Then atheists don't have a leg to stand on either if you take that view.

A creationist can believe evolution is real.
A creationist attributes the abiogenesis from God doing the abiogenesis.
The ones who believe in a spontaneous abiogenesis need to demonstrate it in the lab, which will never happen. No different than the God view because God does not perform tricks on demand so it can never be demonstrated in front of your eyes that way either.

Believing in a God is no different than an Atheist, but somehow the atheist thinks they get a pass at believing in something they cannot demonstrate either.
Oh and in this way, they both require FAITH, the dirtiest word in the atheist dictionary.

The difference is, Atheists don't believe that abiogensis happened a particular way because there's a lack of evidence.

I don't understand why you refuse to grasp the basic principle: atheists only accept evidentiary findings. You keep trying to sound like an authority on atheists but you're clueless.

Atheists don't have faith in anything... atheists accept evidence. For now, the answer to the abiogensis question is "I don't know but scientists have a few ideas."

Religious people fill the "I don't know" gap with "god did it."

You just said there that you don't know, but have faith it will be sorted out.
Faith
That means you are a religious person, welcome to the religious world you pious fellow

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

HOW life came about, bears no relevance to how it changes.

Hmm, ok.

When one types in evolution or any related terms therein, one of the first sites that comes up is Berkeley Evolution 101. This seems to be the "authority" on all things evolution. A fan favorite here.

Let's see what they have to say :

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from

Entire sections about how evolutionary biologists are concerned with this: evolution.berkeley.edu... and more evolution.berkeley.edu...

It seems in contradiction with what you and others are saying. So who's right?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

You may not, however you are showing a distinct lacking in understanding of both evolution, and abiogenesis/proteogenesis. So I am leery of your opinion.

It's good to be leery. The feeling is mutual. So we have something in common.

I only hope you don't think I actually care about what you think of my opinions.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

HOW life came about, bears no relevance to how it changes.

Hmm, ok.

When one types in evolution or any related terms therein, one of the first sites that comes up is Berkeley Evolution 101. This seems to be the "authority" on all things evolution. A fan favorite here.

Let's see what they have to say :

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from

Entire sections about how evolutionary biologists are concerned with this: evolution.berkeley.edu... and more evolution.berkeley.edu...

It seems in contradiction with what you and others are saying. So who's right?

They are embarrassed that there is no answer and they are expressing faith that it will be sorted out.
Faith means they are just religious nutjobs like any run of the mill ordinary religious nutjob.

It is exquisitely delicious.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ahh look the lets misquote Berkley gambit. How quaint. Couple of things you need to know:

(a) Berkley is not the top University for Biological sciences. Link

(b) That is a single source, thus it proves nothing. Here are many more have fun. Link 2

(c) The OP and your own posts look vaguely familair.... oh wait. Link 3 also very Bill Stein like He worked for Nixon ... I'd trust nothing from him either.

(d) There are a number of hypotheses on abiogenesis/proteogenesis. Its why its a series of hypotheses, evolution is a theory, as it has sound evidence supporting it.

(e) Its clear no matter how much I say it I will say it again, with a link.

Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. Link you should really read

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Then the door is over there, as you clearly just conceded the debate Slan leat

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Neighbor. I admit to a spiritual leaning in my life, I'm also a professional scientist. Muse on that.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Neighbor. I admit to a spiritual leaning in my life, I'm also a professional scientist. Muse on that.

Good for you but die hard atheists claim they are not religious.
But they have Faith in something so they really are but won't admit it.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

"Faith" you keep using that work, I don't think you know what it means.\

Science is based upon observation. Science forms its ideas from verifiable data.

Faith, is emotive. Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. Faith may also refer to a hope or belief, rational or irrational, in a certain outcome.

Science does not operate on faith.

Move along.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That then makes you a hypocrite. Your argument is thus invalid. Oh and as I repeatedly say, one does not have to be an atheist to agree that evolution is real, or abiogenisis/proteogenisis occurred.

Then atheists don't have a leg to stand on either if you take that view.

A creationist can believe evolution is real.
A creationist attributes the abiogenesis from God doing the abiogenesis.
The ones who believe in a spontaneous abiogenesis need to demonstrate it in the lab, which will never happen. No different than the God view because God does not perform tricks on demand so it can never be demonstrated in front of your eyes that way either.

Believing in a God is no different than an Atheist, but somehow the atheist thinks they get a pass at believing in something they cannot demonstrate either.
Oh and in this way, they both require FAITH, the dirtiest word in the atheist dictionary.

The difference is, Atheists don't believe that abiogensis happened a particular way because there's a lack of evidence.

I don't understand why you refuse to grasp the basic principle: atheists only accept evidentiary findings. You keep trying to sound like an authority on atheists but you're clueless.

Atheists don't have faith in anything... atheists accept evidence. For now, the answer to the abiogensis question is "I don't know but scientists have a few ideas."

Religious people fill the "I don't know" gap with "god did it."

You just said there that you don't know, but have faith it will be sorted out.
Faith
That means you are a religious person, welcome to the religious world you pious fellow

How is "I don't know" the same as having faith?

You really are incredibly dense.

a reply to: Answer

I think that should be "deliberately dense" . I have not read a new gambit from creationists, IDers, and the anti science luddite posters for about a decade.

a reply to: Answer

I have studied the topic from A to E extensively, when I was in school many years ago and had to write the tests on evolutionary biology I wrote "this is the academic answer you are looking for, but I personally do not believe it "

My stance has never wavered in the least, I have faith in God, you have faith in constructs of hypothesis and theories of science.

To each his own.

One day in the future people will look back at a period of time in the 20th and 21st centuries where science created this fantastical complex story that was accepted by most, and they will wonder with great amazement at how they could have ever believed it.
Of coarse most in this thread, think the reverse will happen.

a reply to: Noinden

(a) Berkley is not the top University for Biological sciences.

I just love the reek of intellectual snobbery, highlighted right here.

Good Job