More discussion on evolution and abiogenesis

In summary: There are other explanations outside of the scientific model which account for this issue, which I believe.
  • #1
scott_alexsk
336
0
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
scott_alexsk said:
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.
 
  • #3
Moridin said:
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.
 
  • #4
PIT2 said:
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.
 
  • #5
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
PIT2 said:
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/
 
  • #7
PIT2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #9
PIT2 said:
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?
 
  • #10
Moridin said:
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
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
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'?
 
  • #12
"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.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
PIT2 said:
Selection is eliminative. It, by definition, does not deal with the production of traits.

Incorrect. Natural Selection can be both.1

PIT2 said:
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.

PIT2 said:
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

MSN Encarta said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
"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.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
PIT2 said:
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?


PIT2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
PIT2 said:
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.
 
  • #17
PIT2 said:
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.
 

1. What is evolution?

Evolution is the process by which living things change over time. It is the result of genetic variations that occur within a population, as well as natural selection and other mechanisms that drive changes in traits from one generation to the next.

2. What is abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is the scientific term for the origin of life from non-living matter. It is the process by which living organisms first emerged on Earth from inanimate substances.

3. How does evolution support abiogenesis?

Evolution does not directly support abiogenesis, as they are two separate scientific theories. However, the principles of evolution, such as genetic variation and natural selection, can help explain how life emerged and diversified on Earth after abiogenesis occurred.

4. What evidence supports evolution and abiogenesis?

There is a vast amount of evidence from various scientific fields that supports the theories of evolution and abiogenesis. Some examples include fossil records, genetic studies, and experiments that have recreated the conditions of early Earth to demonstrate the plausibility of abiogenesis.

5. Are evolution and abiogenesis widely accepted by scientists?

Yes, both evolution and abiogenesis are widely accepted by the scientific community. They have been extensively studied and supported by evidence from various fields of science, and they are considered foundational principles in the study of biology and the origin of life.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
3
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
100
Views
6K
Back
Top