distinction evolution-abiogenesis

[Itoero]

Why do many people make a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution? 

The process that led to the forming of life is subject to survival of the fittest trough natural selection just like the Darwinian  evolution of life. For example:

-The energy of photons (light) can work as catalyst to form organic matter but the formed matter must be fit enough not to break apart due to the photon energy. You might call this survival of the fittest molecules.

-In the Miller Urey,  the applied energy forms amino acids but also limits the size since the formed amino acids have to be resistent (or be fit enough)not to break apart because of the applied energy.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Why do many people make a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution? 

Because they are different.

For example, evolution is still clearly happening today- antibiotic resistance, dog breeding and so on prove this.

It's not clear that abiogenesis is still going on (it might be, but there's no evidence).

[Phi for All]

The distinction is usually with the theory, not the fact of evolution itself. Theory of evolution says nothing about a beginning, just a process over time. 

[Itoero]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Because they are different.

For example, evolution is still clearly happening today- antibiotic resistance, dog breeding and so on prove this.

It's not clear that abiogenesis is still going on (it might be, but there's no evidence).

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Why is that process not evolution? The process that created dinosaurs is evolution...Abiogenesis might still be going on but in a different way then when it formed first life. Abiogenesis is often called chemical evolution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution 'Evolution' is just a term that points to how matter changes trough time. There is for example geologic evolution. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17819825

[John Cuthber]

 

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

'Evolution' is just a term that points to how matter changes trough time.

Yes, and when people use the word "evolution" in this context it's the evolution of life.

You don't start life by evolving life.

 

[Itoero]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The distinction is usually with the theory, not the fact of evolution itself. Theory of evolution says nothing about a beginning, just a process over time. 

That's correct but on YouTube I noted many people don't understand/know there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. On Wikipedia for example all the articles about evolution start with something like this: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution      They call the geologic evolution of the earth, the geological history of the earth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth

[Phi for All]

Some people want the theory to include creation so they can bring up inconsistencies, to cover up the strawman fallacy they're based on. I think others have just been misled by popular journalism into an imprecise definition, sort of like they have with terms like "logic" and "theory". 

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Why is that process not evolution? The process that created dinosaurs is evolution...Abiogenesis might still be going on but in a different way then when it formed first life. Abiogenesis is often called chemical evolution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution 'Evolution' is just a term that points to how matter changes trough time. There is for example geologic evolution. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17819825

Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles over time, so it pertains to genetics and heritability. Abiogenesis is the steps to forming those processes, so it is essentially chemical in nature, as opposed to biological, in the beginning

[Strange]

When/if we determine how life arose on Earth, we will probably find it was some sort of chemical evolution. And, perhaps, there will be analogous selection pressures in which are the theory of evolution might be included to include that pre-biotic phase.Or maybe not.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution by natural selection is independent of the process by which life came about. It could be some sort of gradual chemical evolution or a single event triggered by lightning hitting a particular mix of chemicals or aliens or divine intervention. 

 

[seriously disabled]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

On the other hand, the theory of evolution by natural selection is independent of the process by which life came about. It could be some sort of gradual chemical evolution or a single event triggered by lightning hitting a particular mix of chemicals or aliens or divine intervention. 

 

I don't completely buy into the divine intervention argument.

It could be just a physical process that we don't yet understand.

[Area54]

This is more a matter of philology than science. It would have been better if the changes that occur over time in the universe, in planetary systems, in the interior of stars, in biospheres, etc. had been assigned a different word from that used to describe biological evolution. For want of a better word, let's suppose that generic change had been called development, then there would have been no conflict with evolution (where that term was used exclusively for biological evolution). Further consider that the changes in organic molecules during abiogenesis was called prebiosis, then sentences like this :

The development of planetary systems set the scene for prebiosis to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution.

would provide a welcome alternative to this:

The evolution of planetary systems set the scene for organic evolution to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

I don't completely buy into the divine intervention argument.

Neither do I. I am just pointing out that it is irrelevant to the process and theory of evolution.

[Anthony Morris]

22 hours ago, Itoero said:

That's correct but on YouTube I noted many people don't understand/know there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. On Wikipedia for example all the articles about evolution start with something like this: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution      They call the geologic evolution of the earth, the geological history of the earth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth

This is a situation that could use more clarity in discussions. "Evolution" does mean change, that is true. All too often, people discussing biological evolution will use the word "evolution" without the qualifier "biological" as a means of short-hand. This can lead to confusion if one (or more)  of the individuals in the conversation isn't as familiar with this convention. Laypeople will often conflate biological evolution with planetary evolution and chemical evolution without noticing the difference. 

[seriously disabled]

There are still a lot of things we don't know yet and the origin and evolution of life is one of them.

For example we don't even know yet what drives evolution:

It could be magic, it could be aliens, it could be God or it could be something scientific (a scientific phenomena I mean) that we don't understand yet.

[Strange]

Just now, seriously disabled said:

For example we don't even know yet what drives evolution:

Yes we do. Apart from a few details, this was largely worked out by Wallace and Darwin some time ago.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

There are still a lot of things we don't know yet and the origin and evolution of life is one of them.

This was dealt with earlier in this very thread. These are two different events, and you are making a mistake by equating them with each other. 

A limited analogy: It's like being able to track the path of a rocket probe sent from another star system with amazing accuracy without knowing exactly how it left its home planet in the first place.

[beecee]

59 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

There are still a lot of things we don't know yet and the origin and evolution of life is one of them.

For example we don't even know yet what drives evolution:

It could be magic, it could be aliens, it could be God or it could be something scientific (a scientific phenomena I mean) that we don't understand yet.

The theory of the  evolution of life is as close to certainty as any one could wish for.

While Abiogenesis is the process by which life first arises or appears. While knowledge of Abiogenesis is scant, in realty it is really the only scientific answer open to acceptence, when discussing universal Abiogenesis. Earthly Abiogenesis is of course open to the possibility of Panspermia.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, seriously disabled said:

For example we don't even know yet what drives evolution:

It could be magic, it could be aliens, it could be God or it could be something scientific (a scientific phenomena I mean) that we don't understand yet.

I can't get over this.

How can someone remain totally ignorant of the existence of one of the most important (and, occasionally, controversial) theories ever? OK, you might not fully understand what the theory of evolution says; you might be misled by marketing buzz words like "survival of the fittest", you might think that Creationists or IDiots have a point, but to not even know that we have a scientific theory! It has been around for 160 years! This is taking ignorance to a whole new level.

I literally can't even.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Strange

[beecee]

On 1/7/2018 at 7:37 AM, beecee said:

The theory of the  evolution of life is as close to certainty as any one could wish for.

While Abiogenesis is the process by which life first arises or appears. While knowledge of Abiogenesis is scant, in realty it is really the only scientific answer open to acceptence, when discussing universal Abiogenesis. Earthly Abiogenesis is of course open to the possibility of Panspermia.

The above facts are continually avoided by those with other agendas, or any unscientific notion of ID. While it certainly maybe possible that life on earth was intelligently designed by  some advanced Alien lifeform, the obvious next question is how this advanced lifeform/designer came to be. In other words getting down to the nitty gritty, one cannot but conclude with near certainty, that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer available to us. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by beecee