Natural Selection and inanimate matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of the evolutionary principle of natural selection to inanimate matter prior to the emergence of life on Earth. Participants explore whether natural selection could have acted on self-replicating chemical molecules and the implications of such a concept within the fields of chemistry and biology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if self-replicating entities exist, natural selection could theoretically apply to them, even if these entities are not classified as living organisms.
  • Others argue that while there could have been replicating molecules before RNA or DNA, the existence of such molecules remains unknown.
  • A participant highlights that the definition of life is subjective and that natural selection can act on entities that are not considered alive, such as viruses and prions, which can undergo selection processes.
  • It is noted that natural selection depends on four basic criteria: variation, heritable variation, finite environments, and differential survival and reproduction, which could apply to both living and non-living entities.
  • One participant emphasizes that the distinction between living and non-living is an artificial boundary imposed by humans, suggesting that nature operates on a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of natural selection to inanimate matter, with some supporting the idea and others questioning the existence of replicating molecules. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the incorporation of natural selection in the context of non-living organisms.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects limitations in definitions of life and the criteria for natural selection, as well as the uncertainty surrounding the existence of prebiotic replicating molecules.

revo74
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Was the evolutionary principle of natural selection at work on the Earth before animate matter(life) emerged? Inanimate chemicals replicated before R/DNA and the first living cell. Did natural selection apply to these chemical molecules?

If the answer is yes, is it just a hypothesis or has there been a scientific theory in chemistry that incorporates natural selection of non-living organisms?

Please elaborate. Thanks!
 
Biology news on Phys.org
revo74 said:
Was the evolutionary principle of natural selection at work on the Earth before animate matter(life) emerged? Inanimate chemicals replicated before R/DNA and the first living cell. Did natural selection apply to these chemical molecules?

If the answer is yes, is it just a hypothesis or has there been a scientific theory in chemistry that incorporates natural selection of non-living organisms?

Please elaborate. Thanks!

If you have a self replicating entity, you can have selection. In theory there could have been replicating molecules before RNA or DNA but there actually were any such molecules is completely unknown. So no leads there.

It depends on what you consider animate or inanimate; you could look at prions may be? These are infectious protein fold states. They can go through selection, just like your regular microbial pathogens do.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422111
 
revo74 said:
Was the evolutionary principle of natural selection at work on the Earth before animate matter(life) emerged? Inanimate chemicals replicated before R/DNA and the first living cell. Did natural selection apply to these chemical molecules?

If the answer is yes, is it just a hypothesis or has there been a scientific theory in chemistry that incorporates natural selection of non-living organisms?

Please elaborate. Thanks!

Its important to remember that we define life for our purposes. NS doesn't really care if something is alive or not. For example if you ask most biologists they will tell you viruses are non-living, because we define them to be that way. That doesn't stop NS from acting on them. In a single person with HCV there can be hundreds of quasispecies of virus present. Its what makes things like vaccines to HCV, HIV, influenza etc so hard to do.What selection does care about is really only 4 basic things--The same 4 that Darwin noticed all those years ago. It cares about; variation, heritable variation, environments that are finite and differential survival and reproduction.

From the start then; variation just means that every individual in a population is not identical--that there is variation between them. Some of that variation has to be heritable--that is passed on from parent to offspring. These individuals have to live in an environment of finite resources, if all resource requirements are met then there is no competition and thus no selection. Lastly, reproduction and survival are not equiprobable events for each member of a population. Because of variation (and limited resources) some individuals will have higher (or lower) chances to survive and/or reproduce.

With those met, "something" (whether we define it as alive or not) is capable of evolution by natural selection. Because we impose our definition of life on the natural world--we create an artificial boundary between "living" and "not-living" that doesn't really exist in nature.

Humans love black and white, while Nature thrives on shades of gray.
 
bobze said:
...we create an artificial boundary between "living" and "not-living" that doesn't really exist in nature.

Exactly; a very important point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K