More discussion on evolution and abiogenesis

[scott_alexsk]

Science has no idea of the mechanism. All that will be said is that it just happened and because it did there was life, which continued. There is no explanation beyond that. Of course there are other explanations outside science which account for this issue, which I believe, but I cannot talk about those here.

-scott

Moderator note: This thread is a split from another thread that had gone too far off topic, hence the abrupt start.[/color]

 

[Moridin]

Science has no idea of the mechanism. All that will be said is that it just happened and because it did there was life, which continued. There is no explanation beyond that. Of course there are other explanations outside science which account for this issue, which I believe, but I cannot talk about those here.

-scott

Yes, there is actually quite broad knowledge on the mechanisms behind evolution as well as how different traits emerge as a result of mutation for instance.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Pay special attention to the sections on Genetic Variation and Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation (mutation and recombination especially well). According to the scientific model, creationism does not provide any explanation whatsoever. Also note that this has nothing to do with abiogenesis, that is, how the first living organisms appeared.

 

[PIT2]

Yes, there is actually quite broad knowledge on the mechanisms behind evolution as well as how different traits emerge as a result of mutation for instance.

...
Also note that this has nothing to do with abiogenesis, that is, how the first living organisms appeared.

The traits he is talking about are survival, reproduction. Since these traits are present in all life, the question has everything to do with abiogenesis. Evolution may offer an explanation of how these traits change over time, but does not offer an explanation for the actual origin.

 

[Evo]

The traits he is talking about are survival, reproduction. Since these traits are present in all life, the question has everything to do with abiogenesis.

No, his question has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The question was about survival instincts. This has nothing to do with how life originally formed.

 

[PIT2]

No, his question has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The question was about survival instincts. This has nothing to do with how life originally formed.

These are the defining characteristics of all life (and evolution does not exist without them, or prior to them) evolution itself cannot be the origin. Its the other way around: evolution is a consequence of the survival instincts.

 

[Moridin]

These are the defining characteristics of all life (and evolution does not exist without them, or prior to them) evolution itself cannot be the origin. Its the other way around: evolution is a consequence of the survival instincts.

The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is called abiogenesis. None is claiming that abiogenesis is evolution.

Evolution can operate just fine without survival instincts. In fact, survival is only one component of selection. Males may differ little in their ability to survive, but greatly in their ability to attract mates the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from the latter consideration. A male can live during a short period of time and still produce a vast number of offspring, whether or not it has a strong survival instinct or not.

Evolution demands a genetic diversity, and the individuals that did not have survival instincts were selected against over time, since individuals who did not have it also had a disadvantage towards the others who did.

What evidence do you have to support your claims?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

 

[DaveC426913]

These are the defining characteristics of all life (and evolution does not exist without them, or prior to them) evolution itself cannot be the origin. Its the other way around: evolution is a consequence of the survival instincts.

1] Proteins evolved, though they did not have survival instincts; they weren't even alive. The simple ability to chemically reproduce a copy of itself is enough for evolution to occur.

2] Evolution occurs quite nicely without any survival instincts thankyouverymuch. An albino lion on the African savanna will be pretty effective at NOT passing along its genes, regardless of how sophisticated its survival instincts are. It will starve.

Evolution dramatically predates survival instincts.

 

[PIT2]

Proteins evolved, though they did not have survival instincts; they weren't even alive. The simple ability to chemically reproduce a copy of itself is enough for evolution to occur.

How do they reproduce?

Btw i meant evolution as in evolution theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

How do they reproduce?

I don't really know - but we certainly know they did.

I'm not suggesting they evolved floating around all by their lonesome in the primordial soup, there were other mechanisms in place, such as semi-permeable membranes, but you cannot expect that a drop of organic goop can have anything called a survival instinct.

Btw i meant evolution as in evolution theory.

Is there any other meaning?

 

[PIT2]

Evolution demands a genetic diversity, and the individuals that did not have survival instincts were selected against over time, since individuals who did not have it also had a disadvantage towards the others who did.

Selection is eliminative. It, by definition, does not deal with the production of traits.

Now, since the very first living organism must have had survival instincts (otherwise, it would not be considered alive), that places the origin of these survival instincts prior to the origin of evolution theory, because evolution theory only applies to living beings.

What evidence do you have to support your claims?

What claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

[PIT2]

I don't really know - but we certainly know they did.

But they do now only through the aid of living cells?

I'm not suggesting they evolved floating around all by their lonesome in the primordial soup, there were other mechanisms in place, such as semi-permeable membranes, but you cannot expect that a drop of organic goop can have anything called a survival instinct.

I don't expect that the drops of goop have survival instincts, but i do expect the first living organism to have them.

Is there any other meaning?

Well, since proteins arent alive and u say they evolve, u must have some other meaning of 'evolution'. Perhaps u meant 'change'?

 

[DaveC426913]

"Selection is eliminative. It, by definition, does not deal with the production of traits."
Relevance?


Your definitions are mixed up.

"Now, since the very first living organism must have had survival instincts "
Why do you say that?


"(otherwise, it would not be considered alive), "
Why not?

"Well, since proteins arent alive and u say they evolve, u must have some other meaning of 'evolution'. Perhaps u meant 'change'?"
No, you have some other meaning of evolution.


1] Evolution only requires an ability to make a copy of itself, a method for changing the resultant copies and process that will select for further reproduction. There is actually no "requirement" for life.

2] Selection, whether positive or negative, does not require any form of instinct of even brain activity or even nervous system.

"Instincts" are the privilege only of the more sophisticated organisms - they're merely gravy.

 

[Moridin]

Selection is eliminative. It, by definition, does not deal with the production of traits.

Incorrect. Natural Selection can be both.¹

Now, since the very first living organism must have had survival instincts (otherwise, it would not be considered alive), that places the origin of these survival instincts prior to the origin of evolution theory, because evolution theory only applies to living beings.

Do not think for a second that it is some kind of conscious choice or that it requires some kind of nervous system to survive. All you have to do is simply not get killed. I doubt that the first living biological entity on Earth had the ability to make a conscious decision or the metabolic pathways and biochemistry needed to be able to 'feel' hunger.

Also, using Wikipedia as a source for your claims is a bad idea - especially one that has been tagged as frequently abused.

Well, since proteins arent alive and u say they evolve, u must have some other meaning of 'evolution'. Perhaps u meant 'change'?

You need to separate the different uses of evolution and evolve. There are more than one linguistic meaning, more or less scientific. The same goes for other words such as force, theory, energy and so on.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861609553/evolution.html

3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

¹"Overview of Evolution within a Lineage" Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

[PIT2]

"Selection is eliminative. It, by definition, does not deal with the production of traits."
Relevance?

His paragraph about organisms that do not have surival instincts being wiped out.

Now, since the very first living organism must have had survival instincts
Why do you say that?

On wikipedia it says:

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definition_by_opinion

Why do you think it's not evolution?

I was taught that evolution theory does not extend into the area of abiogenesis. U were talking about protein evolution in the primordial soup.

"Instincts" are the privilege only of the more sophisticated organisms - they're merely gravy.

Then we disagree on what an instinct is. I think it is inherent behaviour of an organism. I also think microbes are quite sophisticated btw.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then we disagree on what an instinct is. I think it is inherent behaviour of an organism.

Inherent behaviour such as, say, an arctic hare physically being able to run at 20mph? Is that a "survival instinct"? Or is that an evolved program, that has nothing to do with the hare's instincts? Do you think that its powerful legs did not help the arctic hare survive?

I also think microbes are quite sophisticated btw.

As do I. But evolution doesn't start there. It starts in much simpler processes.

You seem to feel that evolution is limited ONLY to behavioral actions that can be attributed to instincts. That represents about .0001% of all processes that keep life going.

 

[Moridin]

Can u give a quote or example?

'Simply not getting killed' requires one to be alive first. And being alive requires one to be reproductive. Naturally it is possible that all life is conscious, and that it requires responding intelligently to stimuli from the environment (we certainly know this happens in humans). This however is more of a philosphical issue.

If u see anything incorrect in my wikipedia quotes, feel free to say so.

So u mean that when u say 'evolution', u are not referring to evolution theory?

Thats fine with me. I often say that the entire universe evolves. But since we are discussing about whether survival instincts arose through evolution theory or abiogenesis, i think u should be careful which words u pick.

The following is from the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. I have posted the link several times through this thread:

Natural selection can also increase the frequency of an allele. Selection that weeds out harmful alleles is called negative selection. Selection that increases the frequency of helpful alleles is called positive, or sometimes positive Darwinian, selection.

By selecting against harmful alleles, it is selecting for helpful alleles. There is no need for a specific example - this happens all the time.

Note that those 'requirements of live' of you stated does not tell the entire story - there are animals such as bastards or hybrids that cannot reproduce and are born sterile. However, you cannot possibly claim that they are dead because of it.

It is not a philosophical issue at all. If you do not have a (central) nervous system, you cannot consciously do anything. It is just actions brought on by outside interference, such as levels of chemicals and so on. However, there is no actual reasoning within the organism that allows it to think "Oh, here comes something bad, I better move or else I will die". Organisms that small and basic cannot consciously understand their motives. This is a result of currently accepted definitions.

Articles on Wikipedia can be changed by anyone at anytime. The information on the articles you linked to can change drastically over a short period of time. That is why it is not that professional to use as a source of information in these situations.

Since this conversation has not been about the evolution of the Universe or other linguistic definitions, it is logical to assume that by evolution, I am referring to the biologic definitions of it.

 

[Moridin]

Please give an example. If weeding out harmful alleles results in selecting helpful alleles, that means the helpful ones were already there?

What about their cells, do they reproduce?

Im not going to discuss this here. Feel free to open a topic about it in the philosophy forum.

Yes, the helpful alleles were obviously there, since evolution demands an initial genetic diversion. You want an example of something general? Sure. By making people with a certain condition less able to successfully reproduce, that condition is selected against. Examples could be neurological conditions that can be inherited. According to this there are over 200.

Cells in a multicellular organism differentiate. A single cell organism reproduce. Some creatures make use of asexual reproduction. It is not like a sterile mule will be able to clone itself just because its cells differentiate.

I've made my point about consciousness, the links to credible websites I have provided have supported the facts that I have presented and you do not seem to have any valid counterarguments. I also agree that this is a done deal.