Main Question or Discussion Point
Many people have claimed that evolution started life. I'd say it did not. Life started evolution. Before there is evolution, there must be life. Am I right?
22 Sep , 2009 by Jean Tate
How did life on Earth arise? Scientific efforts to answer that question are called abiogenesis. More formally, abiogenesis is a theory, or set of theories, concerning how life on Earth began (but excluding panspermia).
Note that while abiogenesis and evolution are related, they are distinct (evolution says nothing about how life began; abiogenesis says nothing about how life evolves).
Is that not correct in the sense that (chemical) survival and reproductive success were relevant, crucial, and necessary for the origin of life on earth even during pre-biotic evolution, even before any signs of life existed on earth, and therefore the fundamental tenant of evolution, survival and reproductive success, was necessary for life to emerge on earth, and in this regards, one could suggest, "evolution started life?"Many people have claimed that evolution started life. I'd say it did not. Life started evolution. Before there is evolution, there must be life. Am I right?
This is incorrect. Information: At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system.Only intelligent life can create information
No flawed information has been posted. Biogenesis is not a theory on the origin of life and never has been (as the wiki article you posted yourself explains).I cannot believe that the mentor on this thread posted such flawed information!
OK I agree, it's a hypothesis that says life can be created from non-living materials.... Abiogenesis is a theory on the origin of life here on Earth.
Why do you say so ?Biogenesis is not.
Louis Pasteur's experiment supports the hypothesis of biogenesis. So I don't see the point as to why you turn it down as a "hypothesis" of life origin.From wikipedia said:The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials, however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogenesis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life. The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose.
The term biogenesis may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms (see biosynthesis).
Mindwalk explained it better than I ever could. The theory of biogenesis, as tested by Louis Pasteur, was developed as a competing theory to spontaneous generation, not as an explanation of where all life originally came from, which is what has been proposed in this thread.Louis Pasteur's experiment supports the hypothesis of biogenesis. So I don't see the point as to why you turn it down as a "hypothesis" of life origin.
I looked around a bit and found some information primarily on autocatalysis. I'm not sure if this is quite what you meant by your statement, but I would say there are plenty of examples of self-replicating molecules out there.The simplest self replicating molecule we know of seems to be RNA, as viruses.
That is one of the difficulties for people to also consider a pre-RNA (PNA) world. This is an interesting summary about chemicals and pre-life.The simplest self replicating molecule we know of seems to be RNA, as viruses.
Yet RNA only can do that by taking over the reproductive machinery of more complex cellular organisms.
It's a puzzle.
I do not believe that's true.The simplest self replicating molecule we know of seems to be RNA, as viruses.
Look no further than “At Home in the Universe,” by Stuart Kauffman:I don't think that's true, but I'll have to look around to see if I can find the information on it.
At its heart, a living organism is a system of chemicals that has the capacity to catalyze its own reproduction . . . a collectively autocatalytic system is one in which the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed: A makes B, B makes C, C makes A again. Now imagine a whole network of these self-propelling loops. Given a supply of food molecules, the network will be able to constantly re-create itself. Like the metabolic networks that inhabit every living cell, it will be alive.
And if I may be allowed to make a comment in the interest that some reading this may be stimulated to pursue this further, Kauffman mentions "phase-transition." That phenomenon is very common in our Universe and is one defining property of non-linear dynamics: non-linear systems often exhibit "critical-points" in their behavior in which the dynamics is no longer smooth, but at some point, the critical point, the dynamics abruptly and qualitatively changes as the systems trajects through a phase-transition -- think water abruptly freezing to ice as the temperature is lowered to the freezing point. And since the Universe is so massively non-linear, it should not be such a stretch of logic to suggest that living systems might emerge naturally and perhaps commonly, as a consequence of natural phenomena occurring in a non-linear world such as ours. :)“How likely is it that such a self-sustaining web of reactions would arise naturally? . . . The answer is heartening: The emergence of autocatalytic sets is almost inevitable. As the diversity of molecules in the (pre-biotic) earth increased, the ratio of reactions to chemicals increase. As the ratio of chemicals to reactions increases, the number of reactions that are catalyzed by the molecules in the system increases. When the number of catalyzed reactions is about equal to the number of chemicals, a giant catalyzed reaction web forms, and a collective autocatalytic system snaps into existence. A living metabolism crystallizes. Life emerges as a phase transition.”