What is the case against Evolution?

I agree that Darwin himself avoided addressing the problem of the origin of life.
Not just Darwin - modern evolutionary biologists acknowledge the gap between (current) Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis.

Not that there isn't crossover, just that they're distinct.

Bottom line: Whether we choose to call it "Darwinian" or not (I see no harm in doing that), I think that the idea of natural selection is probably very applicable to understanding the appearance of life prior to the appearance of the first cells. Though like Exchemist says, this kind of "Darwinian" natural selection wouldn't have been applicable until the first self-reproducing chemical replicators had made their appearance. Natural selection does seem to help us make the leap from simple chemical self-replicators to cells though.
Agree.

My specific comment about Darwinian evolution was to counter the following claim:
Point being: we do have a sufficient and plausible theory of abiogenesis: Darwinian evolution of prebiotic chemical complexes.

Darwinian evolution pointedly does not apply to pre-life. Additionally - as you mention - pre-life chemistry didn't have the ability to self-replicate.

I certainly agree that principles garnered from Darwinian evolution might be applied to abiogenesis - but we have to be very careful there, lest we anthropomorphize (actually, I guess it would be biomorphize) those processes.
 
Last edited:
Not just Darwin - modern evolutionary biologists acknowledge the gap between (current) Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis.

Not that there isn't crossover, just that they're distinct.


Agree.

My specific comment about Darwinian evolution was to counter the following claim:


Darwinian evolution pointedly does not apply to pre-life. Additionally - as you mention - pre-life chemistry didn't have the ability to self-replicate.

I certainly agree that principles garnered from Darwinian evolution might be applied to abiogenesis - but we have to be very careful there, lest we anthropomorphize (actually, I guess it would be biomorphize) those processes.
What happened there? You are quoting Yazata but it thinks you are quoting me.

Not that I object to the sentiments attributed to me in this case.....
 
My specific comment about Darwinian evolution was to counter the following claim:

Darwinian evolution pointedly does not apply to pre-life.

That's where we differ, I think. I think that natural selection can apply to anything that self-replicates. It needn't be alive.

Additionally - as you mention - pre-life chemistry didn't have the ability to self-replicate.

I wouldn't locate the appearance of life at the appearance of self-replicators. I'm more inclined to consider them prebiotic chemistry.

The problem here is defining the word 'life' I guess, understanding what that concept means. I'm most inclined to define life with cellular biology, with what simple bacterial/archean cells do, the whole suite of functions that they share in common.

I certainly agree that principles garnered from Darwinian evolution might be applied to abiogenesis - but we have to be very careful there, lest we anthropomorphize (actually, I guess it would be biomorphize) those processes.

That's part of why I don't really consider a simple chemical self-replicator like a short nucleic acid strand to be life in the proper sense. It might be pre-life, proto-life or quasi-life, or something like that.

This isn't just a problem for the philosophy of biology. It's a problem that's going to confront exobiology, if we ever find ourselves in position to encounter extraterrestrial life analogues. How will be even recognize that what we are seeing is life? Where is the dividing line between 'living' and 'non-living'?
 
Last edited:
ok i will try not to be offending!!
Thank you.
er......I disagree
Really, where do spherical bubbles come from? Where does any spherical object come from? Self-assembly?
And so are iron particles around a magnet. Are they self-organizing?
Yep, with a little help from a magnetic field.
I don't think so (that a cell has formed)
Oh. it's a cell alright, it's just not a living cell. That comes later when stuff gets into the cell.
Cellular? I disagree! Water or oil droplets are not cellular according to my personal opinion.
They try to be. They have an unbroken continuous spherical exterior surface, no?

The sphere is the strongest hollow pattern possible. Natural selection figured this out in millions of ways, billions of years ago.

The living cell is an evolved pattern from the right bio-chemicals which combined into a dynamic "protective" envelope.
In 1953, Miller and Urey attempted to re-create the conditions of primordial Earth. In a flask, they combined ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor plus electrical sparks (Miller 1953).
Note; just 4 molecules + energy .
They found that new molecules were formed, and they identified these molecules as eleven standard amino acids. From this observation, they posited that the first organisms likely arose in an environment similar to the one they constructed in their flask, one rich in organic compounds, now widely described as the primordial soup.
This hypothesis is further extended to the claim that, within this soup, single-celled organisms evolved, and as the number of organisms increased, the organic compounds were depleted.
Necessarily, in this competitive environment, those organisms that were able to biosynthesize their own nutrients from elements had a great advantage over those that could not.
Darwin!
Today, the vast majority of organic compounds derive from biological organisms that break down and replenish the resources for sustaining other organisms. And, rather than emerging from an electrified primordial soup, amino acids emerge from biosynthetic enzymatic reactions.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/an-evolutionary-perspective-on-amino-acids-14568445

Whatever humans can come up with in building structures, nature most likely has already been there and tried that. Humans use balls and baubles, nature used balls and baubles from the very beginning.

Natura Artis Magistra (Nature is the Teacher of Art (and Science).

If you see this a simplistic, it is because at this origination stage everything was simplistic. Nothing was complex yet, that came later, with abiogenesis things became complicated, but even here the incredible variety of patterns and biological expressions supports the notion that given sufficient time and space, the variety and complexity of expression may well reach near infinity. But not in the beginning. In the beginning everything is simple. Occam.

The most abundant first element was Hydrogen and guess what, all living things have hydrogen in common, from all the way back to the early universe. Same as Carbon.

Biology on earth is the product of 13+ billion years of evolutionary universal chemistry, culminating in Earth's astounding biological variety.

Did you know that organic molecules are created by radiation in cosmic clouds. Ask Louis Allamandola
Significant contributions made by the The Astrophysics & Astrochemistry Laboratory include:
Determining the mid- and far-infrared properties of over 800 PAHs in their neutral and charged forms under astrophysical conditions and making this collection available to the community at large (www.astrochem.org/pahdb),
1. the demonstration that biogenic organic molecules can be made under the harsh, abiotic conditions in extraterrestrial ices implying they are widespread throughout the Galaxy and cosmos,
2. the recognition that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ions containing nitrogen are common in space, resolving long standing astronomical mysteries associated with infrared emission bands and optical absorption bands that are widespread throughout the universe,
3. the identification of many of the known molecular species frozen in interstellar/pre-cometary ices, and
4. the recognition that a significant fraction of the carbon in the interstellar medium is carried by both microdiamonds and organic materials.
  1. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/molecular-astrophysics/editorial-board/louis-allamandola
 
Last edited:
That's where we differ, I think. I think that natural selection can apply to anything that self-replicates. It needn't be alive.
I don't disagree with that.
No reason why natural selection can't be applied to non-life evolution. Though I think we should take pains not to confuse natural selection in cosmological evolution with natural selection in Darwinian evolution.

I wouldn't locate the appearance of life at the appearance of self-replicators.
Nor would I. I was constraining it the other way: it can't be life because they aren't even self-replicating yet. that doesn't mean that, as soon as they can self-replicate, they are life.

Life has a number of criteria, self-replication is only one. To-wit:

The problem here is defining the word 'life' I guess, understanding what that concept means. I'm most inclined to define life with cellular biology,
I do believe that cellular containment is actually one of the criteria for the definition of life, yes.

This isn't just a problem for the philosophy of biology. It's a problem that's going to confront exobiology, if we ever find ourselves in position to encounter extraterrestrial life analogues. How will be even recognize that what we are seeing is life? Where is the dividing line between 'living' and 'non-living'?
Certainly true.
 
Last edited:
Depending on where you look, here are the criteria that distinguish life from non-life:

  • responsiveness to the environment;
  • growth and change;
  • ability to reproduce;
  • have a metabolism and breathe;
  • maintain homeostasis;
  • being made of cells;
  • passing traits onto offspring.
- Google
 
Depending on where you look, here are the criteria that distinguish life from non-life:

  • responsiveness to the environment;
  • growth and change;
  • ability to reproduce;
  • have a metabolism and breathe;
  • maintain homeostasis;
  • being made of cells;
  • passing traits onto offspring.
- Google

But are there organisms, which only have some of the traits? Those organisms would the bridging mechanism for abiogenesis, no?

What is a virus,.... dead or alive,.... a little alive,.... in the neighborhood of liveliness?....:)
 
Last edited:
But are there organisms, which only have some of the traits?
Well, if it is missing some of those traits, then by definition it would not be life.

Examples?

The most obvious one is viruses, but - not only are they are not considered life - but they cannot be a bridge from non-life to life, since they can only exist side-by-side with life (after all, they're DNA fragments).
 
Well, if it is missing some of those traits, then by definition it would not be life.
Would humans be alive without the support of symbiotic bacteria?
Examples?
I had hoped for some contribution here.
The most obvious one is viruses, but - not only are they are not considered life - but they cannot be a bridge from non-life to life, since they can only exist side-by-side with life (after all, they're DNA fragments).
I agree. They are not (yet) alive and they lead a parasitic existence totally dependent on the host.

But they are almost alive and can make copies of themselves.
Viral replication is the process by which virus particles make new copies of themselves within a host cell. Those copies then can go on to infect other cells. An RNA virus is a virus that has RNA, rather than DNA, as its genetic material. ..
. "The goal of the virus is to replicate itself," notes Altan-Bonnet.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528210736.htm

And is that not a positive sign of life? Motivation?

IMO, it should be included in the list of *criteria*.

That would also solve the problem of "motivated creation", things tend to become self-motivated.
 
Last edited:
Would humans be alive without the support of symbiotic bacteria?
Bacteria meet the criteria. Why are we talaking about bacteria?


I had hoped for some contribution here.
Sorry.

You wrote "But are there organisms..."
I read "But there are organisms..."
:confused:

And is that not a positive sign of life? Motivation?
No. "Motivation" is an anthropomorphism; something I've been trying to get recognized as a risk in productive discussion.

IMO, it should be included in the list of *criteria*.
Biologically, "motivation" is a sloppy, scientifically-ambiguous term, kind of like "satisfaction" is, in the phrase "...the direction of greatest satisfaction".

The idea behind science is to be precise, and to peel away the bad metaphors and magical thinking that is inevitably attached to such words.
 
Bacteria meet the criteria. Why are we talaking about bacteria?
Without them would humans qualify as living when we cannot exist without the help of other biological organisms? We really do not meet all the criteria for life without them. Nor does the virus.
You wrote "But are there organisms"
I read "But there are organisms..."
:confused:
Why? Ok, got it......:)
No. "Motivation" is an anthropomorphism; something I've been trying to get recognized as a risk in productive discussion.
Biologically, "motivation" is a sloppy, scientifically-ambiguous term. The idea behind science is to be precise, and to peel away the bad metaphors and magical thinking that is inevitably attached to such words.
I agree in general.
It depends on if you view the definition from an objective POV. There is subjective intrinsic motivation and objective extrinsic motivation, the latter may well be a deterministic causality.

I am thinking of the law of "necessity and sufficiency" which IMO, produces "motivation".
Motivation is derived from the word motive which is defined as a need that requires satisfaction.
This "need" can originate from several causalities.
In operant conditioning, the type and frequency of behaviour is determined mainly by its consequences. If a certain behaviour, in the presence of a certain stimulus, is followed by a desirable consequence (a reinforcer), the emitted behaviour will increase in frequency in the future, in the presence of the stimulus that preceded the behaviour (or a similar one).
Conversely, if the behaviour is followed by something undesirable (a punisher), the behaviour is less likely to occur in the presence of the stimulus. In a similar manner, removal of a stimulus directly following the behaviour might either increase or decrease the frequency of that behaviour in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Extrinsic_motivation

I realize the common use of the term motivation as applicable to sentient organisms. But even a fundamental biological organism can be highly motivated when in need of energy.
One large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air in a day. One large tree can provide a day's supply of oxygen for up to four people. Each year, one person uses wood and paper products equivalent to a 100 foot tree 18 inches in diameter.
A brainless, single celled slime mold exhibits extremely motivated behaviors when in "need' of a new food source, including "learned" response behaviors. In those contexts we use the expression "external stimulus".
You would not object to the scientific term "stimulus" as a form of extrinsic motivation?

In the end it comes down to the fact that the universe is a dynamically evolving object. Everything within it is energetically "motivated" by the deterministic chronology of events.
 
Last edited:
Without them would humans qualify as living when we cannot exist without the help of other bilogical organisms?
There is nothing in the definition of life that prohibits dependency on other biological organisms.
In fact, virtually all animals are dependent on the help of other biological organisms: the others must die so the animal doesn't starve.

It depends on if you view the definition from an objective POV.
Yes, let's do that.

I am thinking of the law of "necessity and sufficiency"
I am unaware of any such "law". Perhaps you misspoke?

A brainless, single celled slime mold exhibits extremely motivated behaviors when in "need' of a new food source, including "learned" response behaviors. In those contexts we use the expression "external stimulus"
Slime molds eat and breathe.

The criteria list is not a list of all things life might do; it is a list of the minimum things it must do to be considered living.

What you are calling "motivation" is already covered by the other criteria. It is superfluous.
 
I am unaware of any such "law". Perhaps you misspoke?
No, it's a law of Logic in a Dynamical Universe
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between statements. For example, in the conditional statement "If P then Q", we say that "Q is necessary for P" because P cannot be true unless Q is true. Similarly, we say that "P is sufficient for Q" because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.
This logic allows for the concepts of universal elementary potentials, mathematical values and functions, such as self-assembly, self-organization, abiogenesis, multiple places of origin, Mineralogy.

The abundance of biological resources derived from mineral resources on earth was sufficient to fill a potential need for organic life. That human and all other life is spectactularly abundant is proof of the hypothesis. Is there another?

IMO, the complexity does not lie in the number of necessary patterns which are sufficient, but in the incredible number of simple repetitions which form the complexity.

Evolution (all versions) belongs to the mathematical exponential family of universal functions.
 
Last edited:
No, it's a law of Logic ...
I'm quite aware of the common use of the terms in logic.
Just never as a law. And not in science.

This logic allows for the concepts of universal elementary potentials, mathematical values and functions, such as self-assembly, self-organization, abiogenesis, multiple places of origin, Mineralogy.
...
Evolution (all versions) belongs to the mathematical exponential family of universal functions.
:facepalm:
Just when I thought we were having a nice conversation...
 
Back
Top