From a physicochemical point of view is there a difference between abiogenesis and evolution?

[forex]

Often brought up in the origins debate is that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things due to the mutability of organism or its ability to reproduce. But, the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. But exactly the same possibility exist in some lifeless chemical system also - some new molecular structure can be added to the existing lifeless chemical system. Natural selection of this chemical system is then differential survival(existence in time) and the ability to add new molecular structures.

 

Those structures that are not stable enough will cease to exist while the others will be selected. Variation exists within all populations of chemical systems. This occurs partly because changes arise through chemical reactions in the structure of an individual system, and these changes can be stable enough to exist in time. Throughout the existance in time structures of systems interact with their environments to cause variations. The environment of a chemical system includes other chemical systems, atoms, molecules, compounds, as well as various physical objects. Individual chemical systems with certain variants of the structure may survive and exist longer than systems with other, less successful or less stable, variants. Therefore, the population of chemical systems evolves.

 

So how does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also.

Edited March 25, 2016 by forex

[Strange]

There is generally thought to be some sort of pre-biotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of the first living organisms. In that sense there are similarities.

 

The main reason for drawing the distinction is that (the current) theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life and does not depend on how life originated. The theory is equally valid whether life was created by natural process, god or aliens. That needs to be made clear to those try to argue that the theory must be wrong because we don't know how life started.

[forex]

There is generally thought to be some sort of pre-biotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of the first living organisms. In that sense there are similarities.

 

The main reason for drawing the distinction is that (the current) theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life and does not depend on how life originated. The theory is equally valid whether life was created by natural process, god or aliens. That needs to be made clear to those try to argue that the theory must be wrong because we don't know how life started.

I asked this question from a physicochemical point of view and not from a philosophical or theoretical point of view.

 

The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves and because chances for that are practically zero.

 

But, like I said: the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. Exactly the same possibility exist in some lifeless chemical system also - some new molecular structure can be added to the existing lifeless chemical system. If this adding process is not able to turn molecular component parts into the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves by what means would this adding process be able to turn an aggregate of cells, like tissue or - brain, heart, bones... into the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves? Just because you call something "evolution" it, doesn't mean it's different from a physicochemical point of view.

Edited March 25, 2016 by forex

[Strange]

The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves and because chances for that are practically zero.

 

Is that true? This is not a subject I follow in any detail, but I though I had seen some research on exactly this. Perhaps on one of the threads about abiogenesis this forum. (I don't know if it was in-vitro or in-silico, but that is hardly relevant).

 

 

But, like I said ...

 

So you want to turn an interesting question into a repetition of your previously closed thread. I doubt that will go down well.

 

What might be slightly more interesting is for you to start a thread on how you believe species came about. (I assume some variant on creationism.)

[StringJunky]

 

...So how does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also.

Life is an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules. That ensemble becomes life when it reaches a minimum set of functions and conditions, of which, scientists don't know all of them yet.

 

 

Emergence refers to the existence or formation of collective behaviors — what parts of a system do together that they would not do alone.

In describing collective behaviors, emergence refers to how collective properties arise from the properties of parts, how behavior at a larger scale arises from the detailed structure, behavior and relationships at a finer scale. For example, cells that make up a muscle display the emergent property of working together to produce the muscle's overall structure and movement. A water molecule has emergent properties that arise out of the properties of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Many water molecules together form river flows and ocean waves. Trees, other plants and animals form a forest.

http://necsi.edu/guide/concepts/emergence.html

Edited March 25, 2016 by StringJunky

[forex]

 

Is that true? This is not a subject I follow in any detail, but I though I had seen some research on exactly this. Perhaps on one of the threads about abiogenesis this forum. (I don't know if it was in-vitro or in-silico, but that is hardly relevant).

 

 

So you want to turn an interesting question into a repetition of your previously closed thread. I doubt that will go down well.

 

What might be slightly more interesting is for you to start a thread on how you believe species came about. (I assume some variant on creationism.)

 

I'm a skeptic by nature, so I question everything. If you have a problem with that then don't enter into a discussion.

Life is an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules. That ensemble becomes life when it reaches a minimum set of functions and conditions, of which, scientists don't know all of them yet.

 

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism). This is NOT an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules because 'lifeless' molecules are heading towards equilibrium or towards a state of minimum potential energy and not towards a functions and conditions in which complex molecular component parts will maintain and replicate themselves. This is science that can be observed in a laboratory every day.

Edited March 25, 2016 by forex

[swansont]

The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves

To some extent, probably. Also because there are undoubtedly different mechanisms involved.

 

and because chances for that are practically zero.

 

That would require knowing what the chances are, and without that this is just an supported assertion.

[Strange]

The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves

 

Here are the first two result in a search for research in this area:

http://prelude.bu.edu/publications/Segre_etal_OLEB_1998.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v8/n3/abs/nchem.2419.html

 

So it seems that the chemistry you claim is impossible can happen. (A bit like evolution.)

[StringJunky]

 

I'm a skeptic by nature, so I question everything. If you have a problem with that then don't enter into a discussion.

OK then: "Abiogenesis and Evolution are codswallop". Now, please educate me. Note that we are in Biology.

[Strange]

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism). This is NOT an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules

 

What is it then?

[Phi for All]

I'm a skeptic by nature, so I question everything.

 

Questioning is great. What you do, the thing that removes you from the ranks of true skeptics, is your unwillingness to listen to informed rebuttal of your arguments. You tend to create a soapbox derby, where you make assertions, replies show where you're wrong or have no support, but you ignore them and just keep preaching. That's not what a skeptic does. You're no skeptic.

 

Skeptics question, then they find out the best supported explanation, then they don't need to question that bit until there's conflicting evidence, and they move on with a bit more knowledge. Remaining an eternal skeptic is so counterproductive to science as to be a crime, imo. A crime against the learning process.

[forex]

I asked a straight-up question: How does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also?

I expect a straight-up answer. If you don't have the answer, that's OK. But please stop spamming my thread.

[StringJunky]

I asked a straight-up question: How does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also?

I expect a straight-up answer. If you don't have the answer, that's OK. But please stop spamming my thread.

I can't see what the problem is for you. Below a certain level of molecular complexity and interactions, in biological systems, the components would not be defined as 'living', since they are not self-sustaining...they require interaction with other molecular systems; as individual components they are 'lifeless'. These individual components together act as an ensemble. If that ensemble fulfills the criteria that scientists understand as an autonomous, living system, it is called an 'organism'.

Edited March 26, 2016 by StringJunky

[Acme]

I asked a straight-up question: How does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also?

I expect a straight-up answer. If you don't have the answer, that's OK. But please stop spamming my thread.

In a word, chance. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in an emergent property. The constituents are the chemicals, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Lightning, cosmic ray, or temperature to name a few possible circumstances.

[Strange]

This is NOT an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules

 

What is it then?

[forex]

I can't see what the problem is for you. Below a certain level of molecular complexity and interactions, in biological systems, the components would not be defined as 'living', since they are not self-sustaining...they require interaction with other molecular systems; as individual components they are 'lifeless'. These individual components together act as an ensemble. If that ensemble fulfills the criteria that scientists understand as an autonomous, living system, it is called an 'organism'.

Thanks for providing a straight-up answer, but unfortunately you just described how people differentiate between 'living system' and 'lifeless system'.

Description is an abstract mental construct created in a human mind. If humans define something as 'live' because it is self-sustaining, from a physicochemical point of view it just means 'existence in time'. The stone in my backyard is able to exist in time the same as E. coli in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. After 60,000 generations Lenski's bacteria are still ... bacteria, with little structural changes. In the same period of time the stone in my backyard, is still... a stone and due to interaction with its environment its structure have changed a little bit also. To be able to exist in time the bacteria reproduces every 20 minutes. On the other hand, the stone in my backyard is so well adapted to its environment that it is able to exist in time without reproduction.

So, from a physicochemical point of view, if process that causes structural changes in stone is not able to turn stone into a physicochemical system with the ability to maintain and to replicate itself by what means would this process turn a collection unicellular organisms or collection of tissues into organs or organ systems with the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves? Or in other words, how does the ability to "change structure over time" differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution?

In a word, chance. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in an emergent property. The constituents are the chemicals, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Lightning, cosmic ray, or temperature to name a few possible circumstances.

Thanks for providing a straight-up answer. I agre with you. The only possible mechanism is chance.

But here is the problem with chance argument. Everybody can make an appeal to chance to explain everything. For example I can say that Moai figures on Easter Island are emergent property of erosion process. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in the Moai figure. The constituents are the minerals or mineraloids, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Wind, rain, waves, ice, heat from the sun, acid rain... to name a few possible circumstances.

So, is this reasonable scientific explanation or blind faith?

 

What is it then?

It is an emergent property of far from equilibrium components that act together as an intricate whole.

Edited March 26, 2016 by forex

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Stop trying to reintroduce closed topics. You have 3 threads on this topic, and in none of those were you even remotely capable of holding honest debate. This is not your blog; stop using it as such.