Darwinian evolution does not include abiogenesis.
I presume what Dave means is that abiogenesis can usefully be regarded as the prebiotic processes that led to the first replicator.Why not?
I'm inclined to imagine simple chemical replicators appearing... somehow. Short RNA strands conceivably, or something else. Molecules able to make more of themselves in a suitable environment.
Once you have that, natural selection would seem to apply. The more efficient replicators would have a selective advantage.
Not only would you see more and more effective replicators, you would see other mods appearing that facilitate the replication. Perhaps the ability to synthesize a protective membrane, with suitable permeability, where necessary reactants can gather to facilitate the replicators always having a suitable environment in which to replicate. Stuff like that.
I imagine the first bacterial-like cells appearing at the end of a long succession of those kind of steps. Steps in which basic cellular anatomy is hammered out, the genetic code, protein synthesis, energy metabolism and all that.
What I have trouble imagining is fully-formed cells just popping out of some "primordial soup". Anyone who has studied cellular biology would recognize the unlikelihood of that.
I agree. People often confuse evolution with evolution by natural selection. My understanding is that evolution refers to anything that changes over time. Other examples of evolution include:I presume what Dave means is that abiogenesis can usefully be regarded as the prebiotic processes that led to the first replicator.
Since a replicator is required before evolution by natural selection can work, evolution by natural selection cannot include this earlier process.
However if you widen the meaning of evolution beyond this, then I suppose you could say that these prebiotic processes are part of that broader development.
You are talking about two different things.I agree. People often confuse evolution with evolution by natural selection. My understanding is that evolution refers to anything that changes over time.
Something like that. Everyone is thinking along these lines (e.g RNA first, metabolism first hypotheses, etc).Why not?
I'm inclined to imagine simple chemical replicators appearing... somehow. Short RNA strands conceivably, or something else. Molecules able to make more of themselves in a suitable environment.
Once you have that, natural selection would seem to apply. The more efficient replicators would have a selective advantage.
Not only would you see more and more effective replicators, you would see other mods appearing that facilitate the replication. Perhaps the ability to synthesize a protective membrane, with suitable permeability, where necessary reactants can gather to facilitate the replicators always having a suitable environment in which to replicate. Stuff like that.
I imagine the first bacterial-like cells appearing at the end of a long succession of those kind of steps. Steps in which basic cellular anatomy is hammered out, the genetic code, protein synthesis, energy metabolism and all that.
You are talking about two different things.
One is the theory of evolution, a theory that mutations cause random heritable changes in organisms, and natural selection retains those traits that aid in survival and reproduction. It cannot function until an organism has a mechanism to inherit traits from a progenitor.
The second is the word evolution. That's just a word that has a lot of meanings, like "change."
But everyone here is talking about the THEORY of evolution.
Yes indeed. What globali and I have been exploring is that "evolution", as a word, can have broader meanings.To be clear - this isn't my opinion; it's a fact. The theory of Darwinian evolution does not have anything to say about abiogenesis. Both Darwin himself, and the science that sprang from his theory are clear on this.
References on this are easy to find, based on your source preference.
"... creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
"When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. ...
Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/
"Darwinian evolution is an attempt to explain how living things change and become more complex over time by slow uniform changes that happen solely by natural causes.
...
Darwinian evolution is based on observations of changes within species.
...
These observable changes within species are then extrapolated to non observable changes from one type of species to another type of species. Abiogenesis is not based on any observations but purely on extrapolation from Darwinian evolution based on the assumption that everything must happen by natural cause."
https://socratic.org/questions/what...theory-of-evolution-and-the-hypothesis-of-abi
My only concern is that i am over simplifying the process, and a knowledgable biochemist might laugh and think that i am talking bs. This process is carried by super complex enzymes called polymerases, not to mention ligases, helicases, etc. Their activity is dictated by their spatial structure that in turn is determined by the sequence of aminoacids (see pic)My opinion is that the creation of the replicators is not that difficult to happen. You only need a strand of nucleic acids, or a chain, something like a stable RNA (RNA is unstable) that will attract free nucleic acids through complementary base bonds. One strand will be the template and the other one the newly formed chain.
Of course its evolution. Like the evolution of my hair styling. It was influenced by several external and internal factors during the years.What about the evolution of an existing pattern like a river. Is the gradual change of a river due to erosion a form of evolution?
How about the formation of the solar system, a spiral galaxy? Evolution?
My only concern is that i am over simplifying the process, and a knowledgable biochemist might laugh and think that i am talking bs. This process is carried by super complex enzymes called polymerases, not to mention ligases, helicases, etc. Their activity is dictated by their spatial structure that in turn is determined by the sequence of aminoacids.
However, i guessed that maybe the job can be partly (approximately) done by simpler processes. Maybe i am talking bs though.
thats what i did. You think you are saying something deep, while in fact you are trying to catch up with the obvious. You think you have a solution because you don't understand in depth what the problem is. You are viewing it superficially.If you want to avoid getting tangled up in "irreducible complexity", you cannot propose a process that already has complexity in its parts to start with.
The whole point is that all complexity can be reduced to individual parts, until you arrive at the very elementary particles from which everything is made.
Apparently it is one of the most common occurrences in nature. We can observe naturally formed cells everywhere.What I have trouble imagining is fully-formed cells just popping out of some "primordial soup". Anyone who has studied cellular biology would recognize the unlikelihood of that.
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on Earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. ... These membranous droplets, called protocells, were presumed to be the first cells.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chemical-evolutionchemical evolution.
The formation of complex organic molecules (see also organic molecule) from simpler
inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the
Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical
evolution lasted less than a billion years.
Hmmmm....and the above is an example of something deep you are saying?thats what i did. You think you are saying something deep, while in fact you are trying to catch up with the obvious. You think you have a solution because you don't understand in depth what the problem is. You are viewing it superficially.
The theory of Darwinian evolution does not have anything to say about abiogenesis. Both Darwin himself, and the science that sprang from his theory are clear on this.
References on this are easy to find, based on your source preference.
er......I disagreeApparently it is one of the most common occurrences in nature. We can observe naturally formed cells everywhere.
And so are iron particles around a magnet. Are they self-organizing?The self-organizing feature is found in the polar ends of molecules.
One end likes water the other repels water.
I don't think so (that a cell has formed)Put a clump of this bi-polar substance in water and the molecules will line up with the water attractive side out and the water repellent side inward. Presto, a cell has formed.
Cellular? I disagree! Water or oil droplets are not cellular according to my personal opinion.Pour some oil in water and you will immediately get a buch of cellular oil droplets floating in the water.
Well - no. Oil is hydrophobic. Oil and water do not mix well. No "cells" - just areas of oil and water.The self-organizing feature is found in the polar ends of molecules.
One end likes water the other repels water.
Put a clump of this bi-polar substance in water and the molecules will line up with the water attractive side out and the water repellent side inward. Presto, a cell has formed.