Separation of fields of science like that is allowing an escape by way of semantics. It's the easy way out. We can't separate you from your cells can we?
And survival of the most stable or fittest is exactly thing that is not so clear in abiogenesis. There is only stable, so how can it evolve or start from scratch.
Originally posted by queeqNo, sorry, it's not an escape. Evolution is true, IDers will just have to deal with that...as it is.
Separation of fields of science like that is allowing an escape by way of semantics. It's the easy way out. We can't separate you from your cells can we?And survival of the most stable or fittest is exactly thing that is not so clear in abiogenesis. There is only stable, so how can it evolve or start from scratch.
Whether we know how molecules first formed and how the transition from non-life to life came about or not, does not take away any credibility from Evolution and doesn't give any to ID, so I am not sure why you are even arguing about it in this thread.
Technically, it is even simpler than all of that.
Much modern work on evolutionary principals has highlighted the importance of replication and replicators.
We can even remove biology from the principals at this point and say that, anything that replicates itself, and there is some degree of heredity and variation within that replication, and the variation's ability to replicate is based on the interaction of the features of that variation and the "environment" (doesn't have to be nature) in which it is replicating.
Anything, ANYTHING, that has the qualities of replication, heredity and variance will undergo evolution. It just happens that DNA molecules have that.
Now, you are correct in assuming that the theory of replication and variation has little if anything to say about the first molecules that created life. This is essentially because these molecules did not replicate, variate, pass on information hereditarily, or only did some combination of the three.
Actually, that is even an overstatement. Since we do not know what became DNA or how it formed, to assume that an evolutionary process was responsible for it (or to demand that the theory of evolution address it) is like saying "I want you to eat your supper with your roller skates".
It would be like saying the theory of parallel processing of visual information is false because it doesn't explain all human consciousness, or that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain the big bang. It does not become more appropriate to use evolution to answer questions it is not designed to answer than it would be to apply the germ theory of disease to how a motor works, and then claim there are no germs when it fails.
Originally posted by queeq
Because it is relevant to the debate.It hasn't just have to do with non-;ife to life but also from life-to-life evolution. How do cells, how do its molecules evolve? Is that even possible? That's the point. If life evolves, it should evolve at the lowest levels as well.
how the molecules within a living creature change over time due to natural selection is NOT the same question as how did the first inorganic molecules become the first organic molecules
clearly you see the difference. In the case of organisms, variable, hereditary replicators are already present, in the case of pre-organic molecules, there is no evidence to assume these mechanisms existed.
Originally posted by inimalist
clearly you see the difference. In the case of organisms, variable, hereditary replicators are already present, in the case of pre-organic molecules, there is no evidence to assume these mechanisms existed.
It is arguable that water "evolved" in a sense because of it's stability, the abundance of hydrogen and oxygen, and the attraction between those two elements.
Originally posted by Quark_666
It is arguable that water "evolved" in a sense because of it's stability, the abundance of hydrogen and oxygen, and the attraction between those two elements.
Water does not replicate... or have any other of the qualities of evolution...
Stuff develops over time, but evolves, especially in the strict scientific context it is being used in here, is not the correct term, unless of course there is some sort of replication, heredity and variation.
Originally posted by inimalist
how the molecules within a living creature change over time due to natural selection is NOT the same question as how did the first inorganic molecules become the first organic moleculesclearly you see the difference. In the case of organisms, variable, hereditary replicators are already present, in the case of pre-organic molecules, there is no evidence to assume these mechanisms existed.
Well it is the same question, because molecules CANNOT JUST EVOLVE. The arrangement of atoms adheres to very strict laws. Molecules are very complex and are subject to the laws of quantum physics. So how they changed from non-living matter to living matter or from one molecule into another is subject to the same very strict laws. From a quantum physics POV it's exactly the samen question.
Again, if evolution works, it should also work on the lowest levels. And not just from non-living to living, but also from one type of species to another.
Originally posted by queeqYour question(s) is (are) rather incoherent. And I'm not saying that to be rude or mean, I'm being frank, in that the way you've mish-mashed a bunch of terms, I don't exactly know what you're talking about.
Well it is the same question, because molecules CANNOT JUST EVOLVE. The arrangement of atoms adheres to very strict laws. Molecules are very complex and are subject to the laws of quantum physics. So how they changed from non-living matter to living matter or from one molecule into another is subject to the same very strict laws. From a quantum physics POV it's exactly the samen question.Again, if evolution works, it should also work on the lowest levels. And not just from non-living to living, but also from one type of species to another.
By "molecules" are you referring to small molecules or macromolecules?
When you say "living matter" as opposed to "non-living matter" are you referring to organic compounds as opposed to inorganic compounds?
How would evolution apply at the level of quanta?
These statements again lead me to believe you perceive some flaw in evolution due to questions about abiogenesis, when evolution doesn't particularly have to explain abiogenesis. It's not a theory of everything.
Evolution requires the qualities of replication, heredity and variance as inimalist has already stated, and it works fine at the species level, where it actually applies. Again abiogenesis is a different field with its own mechanistic theories "RNA first" and "Metabolism first" being the most prominent iirc.
I'm not mish-mashing. The point is you're trying to split fields up way too much. Hiding in one's own discipline is one of the greatest faults I have seen in all my documentary making work in various fields of science.
I'll explain it yet AGAIN.
Every living cells contain are large number of molecules that make it function and duplicate. The best known isof course the DNA molecule. But tehre are many enzyms, proteins etc etc... working in and between cells to provide food, protection, information ect. Without these molecules no cell can exist. And there are many many many kinds of cells (blood cells, neurons, etc.etc) that all work differently and have different types of molecules. In essence, the living cell is the building block of life.
So again, if life evolves from single cell organisms to complex creatures like ourselves... then CELLS AND IT'S MOLECULES should also be able to evolve. But since other laws apply here, like those of quantum physics, evolution is not so easily explained at this level.
Ignoring that aspect is of course very easy. It's a common method in scientists (and I have seeenn this very often) to ignore those elements that don't suit the model you work with, but it's a little one-sided. This is a path evolution should look into, because it will lend great understanding about life. Just Darwinian evolution doesn't work on this level. That's the point.
No one so far has responed properly to this aspect, but with all new technology like STM microscopes, this new field will grow in any life study, I'm pretty sure of that.
Cases of protein (which encompasses enzyme) evolution are pretty well documented. And experiments have been performed into the field of abiogenesis producing amino acids and peptides, although there's still much work to do, the most well known being the Miller-Urey type experiments iirc.
If we're to go to a more simple level then I don't know how one applies evolution to the formation of ammonia or water. I don't really get what you're going at with quantum physics though either. barker
Originally posted by queeq
I'm not mish-mashing. The point is you're trying to split fields up way too much. Hiding in one's own discipline is one of the greatest faults I have seen in all my documentary making work in various fields of science.
I'm afraid that you are not accepting the limits that science has. I cannot imagine a scientist (outside of theoretical physics) postulating that there is a theory of everything. Evolutionary theory has only been designed to deal with certain phenomena. Evolution does not explain the things it is not designed to, it can only model phenomena that conform to the type of phenomena it is designed to model.
While I would commend your desire to integrate various fields of understanding, that won't be done by throwing the baby out with the bath water. Integrating evolutionary biology with the biophysics of the origins of life is inescapable, and you are correct in saying that, when we understand it, they will be heavily related. However, to say that we should be able to explain all the findings and theories of biophysics with the context of evolutionary biology (or vice versa) is to abandon the scientific method. The only way something would be explainable by the theory of evolution is if it is shown to posses the qualities required for evolution.
Originally posted by queeq
I'll explain it yet AGAIN.Every living cells contain are large number of molecules that make it function and duplicate. The best known isof course the DNA molecule. But tehre are many enzyms, proteins etc etc... working in and between cells to provide food, protection, information ect. Without these molecules no cell can exist. And there are many many many kinds of cells (blood cells, neurons, etc.etc) that all work differently and have different types of molecules. In essence, the living cell is the building block of life.
nobody is arguing with this, other than to say it is DNA that is responsible for both cell function and replication, but that is really a nit pick more than a real point, as I agree that a cell is really a community of things working together for proper function. In fact, in plant cells, the photoreceptive parts within the cell are, last I read, ancient organisms which parasitically evolved along with other proto-cell anatomy.
Originally posted by queeq
So again, if life evolves from single cell organisms to complex creatures like ourselves... then CELLS AND IT'S MOLECULES should also be able to evolve. But since other laws apply here, like those of quantum physics, evolution is not so easily explained at this level.
That is a wrong assumption. Right, over large periods of time, life evolves. However, neither individual cells nor molecules have the ability to evolve. This isn't Pokemon. Evolution is a continuum of variation that appears to create species, although they are really just highly varied versions of ancestral species. That variation over time is what causes evolution. It is not "creature X evolves to creature Y" or "the molecules in creature X evolve into the molecules of creature Y".
Quantum physics have nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you have used quantum physics to try and explain something unrelated to the field is revealing of a lack of understanding of true quantum fundamentals and a typical "gaps" style retreat, or mystery mongering. I don't mean to say that you don't know quantum physics, it is more that the quantum physics that becomes known through pop-culture is vastly different than the one known to physicists. The idea that quantum reality applies to us on a day to day basis is one of these mysteries, or so my understanding of it goes. I'm highly skeptical of quantum physics anyways....
Originally posted by queeq
Ignoring that aspect is of course very easy. It's a common method in scientists (and I have seeenn this very often) to ignore those elements that don't suit the model you work with, but it's a little one-sided. This is a path evolution should look into, because it will lend great understanding about life. Just Darwinian evolution doesn't work on this level. That's the point.
This paragraph actually sums up what we have been saying to you. Evolution (no need to call it Darwinian, we all know what you are talking about, labeling it as such shows memetic influence from creationists who hope to make scientific fact just another ism) does not work at the level you are trying to apply it to. Thats it. Exactly.
Evolution says nothing about the origins of species. Argument over.
Originally posted by queeq
No one so far has responed properly to this aspect, but with all new technology like STM microscopes, this new field will grow in any life study, I'm pretty sure of that.
well, not sure if I count as anyone, but hit me with what you still need cleared up
I don't need anything cleared up. People keep saying the two have nothing to do with it because it's a different field of science. All I am saying is that people HAVE limited their views to their own field. Looking over the borders of their own backyard would help in them not holding so fast on ideas and calling them undisputed fact, like some do in here.
Once you have a look at someone else's garden (you don't have to investigate it, but once in a while eavesdrop would suffice) you may begin to understand the relativity of what you find so darn important that you feel justified to corner people, call names and what have you.
One thing I don't understand though... evolutionists don't belive in creation or God... why do they get so bloody upset once someone brings up they don't even believe?
Originally posted by queeq
One thing I don't understand though... evolutionists don't belive in creation or God... why do they get so bloody upset once someone brings up they don't even believe?
Many evolutionists do believe in god, but those that don't often see His, (its?...their?) insertion into any debate as either an appeal to a 'higher authority' that they do not recognize, a divergence from science, or even from rational debate. With that minor ad hominem taken care of, I think it is important to note the distinction between the development of a stable system and evolution. Evolution is the change of hereditary characteristics of a population through time. It does not apply to molecules because they do not have generations. They can be broken up, or combined into new combinations, but they do not reproduce.