This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
Has life ever been created from scratch in a controlled. laboratory setting?
1-25 of 29
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@Sharon
abiogenesis - the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
abiogenesis - the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez Try this:
Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution
Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 I don't see where the two definitions are necessarily mutually exclusive. Given we are discussing the creation of life on Earth I would suggest keeping it simple and focus on carbon based organisms.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez The first definition is not succinct, and cannot ever be exhaustive.
Note: All life on Earth is carbon-based
Note: All life on Earth is carbon-based
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 Your semantics are pointless for this discussion. I'm not concerned about exotic, hypothetical, life forms that might exist on extraterrestrial environments. The NASA definition is overkill. This isn't Star Trek. Just address the original question.
Note: No kidding. That is the point of my comment about focusing on carbon based organisms.
Note: No kidding. That is the point of my comment about focusing on carbon based organisms.
@RuyLopez
Not to my knowledge.
So now answer me this: Does not knowing how life first began invalidate the evidence that it has since evolved? If so, how so?
I'd be happy to discuss some examples of the evidence and see whether you can submit a superior explanation to evolution using creationism.
Has life ever been created from scratch in a controlled. laboratory setting?
Not to my knowledge.
So now answer me this: Does not knowing how life first began invalidate the evidence that it has since evolved? If so, how so?
I'd be happy to discuss some examples of the evidence and see whether you can submit a superior explanation to evolution using creationism.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez Abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics.
Abiogenesis addresses how life began.
Evolution describes what happens after life has begun.
Of course, the only discussion around abiogenesis involves how it happened - we already know that it happened 😀
Abiogenesis addresses how life began.
Evolution describes what happens after life has begun.
Of course, the only discussion around abiogenesis involves how it happened - we already know that it happened 😀
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 Exactly.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez Evolution isn't used to explain abiogenesis.
Nobody even tries to do that... it would be like using spectral analysis to explain bicycles 😀
Neither topic has any interest in the other.
Nobody even tries to do that... it would be like using spectral analysis to explain bicycles 😀
Neither topic has any interest in the other.
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 Your statement is demonstrably false.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez In what way?
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@Sharon @newjaninev2
Okay.
False.
It is not irrelevant to rethink the meaning and scope of what we term Darwinism.
It is possible to consider Darwinism merely as Darwin’s theory. This apparently easy solution is not uncontroversial. According to Mayr (1985, p. 757, 1988, p. 198), there is no single Darwinian theory of evolution. In fact, we may distinguish five theories that Darwin combined: evolution as such, common descent, gradualism, multiplication of species, and natural selection. In this sense, the conceptual core of those five theories intertwined would constitute Darwinism. But Darwinism is not only a theoretical conglomerate, it is also a worldview and a scientific stance with deep social, ideological, and political implications.
Darwin privately argued that the emergence of life was a chemical process ‘chemical evolution’—see, for example, the now famous letter to Hooker in 1871 on the “warm little pond” and other texts in Peretó et al. 2009—but also recognized that it was still outside experimental scrutiny,
At any rate, for a fully consequent Darwinian, life had a non-miraculous, spontaneous beginning on this planet in the distant past, despite the difficulty or even impossibility of observing such spontaneous generation under extant laboratory conditions. This was the intellectual stance taken by Huxley in 1870 in his Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science and followed by other materialist scientists such as Haeckel, Karl W. von Nägeli (1817–1891), John Tyndall (1820–1893), and August Weismann (1834–1914). [big]All of them speculated on different versions of an “evolutionary abiogenesis,” the generation of life from inorganic matter through a process of chemical transformations on the primitive Earth[/big] (Kamminga 1988).
Proposals of evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life were favored by the increasing molecularization of biology at the beginning of twentieth century (Fry 2006; Lazcano 2010). The contributions of Aleksandr I. Oparin (1894–1980) have generally been acknowledged as (a) the final abandonment of spontaneous generation (Farley 1977, p. 171); (b) a philosophical breakthrough assuming a materialistic view—without gaps between inert and living matter, or “continuity thesis” after Fry (1995)—and a Darwinist context—where the emergence of life was not by chance nor a single event but the outcome of a slow evolutionary process during long periods of time (Fry 2000, pp. 77–79); and (c) an epistemological background, shaped by the sociopolitical context, for the new experimental research program of prebiotic chemistry (Lazcano 2010). In 1929, John B. S. Haldane (1892–1964) published a short paper (Haldane 1929) that independently converged with the initial ideas exposed by the Russian biochemist (Oparin 1924) and that retrospectively constitutes the most significant contribution to the field from the western world in the 1920s.
https://rdcu.be/dsJVA
Here endth the lesson. Did you even make it this far? I doubt it. 😉
Demonstrate its falsity then.
Okay.
Evolution isn't used to explain abiogenesis.
False.
It is not irrelevant to rethink the meaning and scope of what we term Darwinism.
It is possible to consider Darwinism merely as Darwin’s theory. This apparently easy solution is not uncontroversial. According to Mayr (1985, p. 757, 1988, p. 198), there is no single Darwinian theory of evolution. In fact, we may distinguish five theories that Darwin combined: evolution as such, common descent, gradualism, multiplication of species, and natural selection. In this sense, the conceptual core of those five theories intertwined would constitute Darwinism. But Darwinism is not only a theoretical conglomerate, it is also a worldview and a scientific stance with deep social, ideological, and political implications.
Darwin privately argued that the emergence of life was a chemical process ‘chemical evolution’—see, for example, the now famous letter to Hooker in 1871 on the “warm little pond” and other texts in Peretó et al. 2009—but also recognized that it was still outside experimental scrutiny,
At any rate, for a fully consequent Darwinian, life had a non-miraculous, spontaneous beginning on this planet in the distant past, despite the difficulty or even impossibility of observing such spontaneous generation under extant laboratory conditions. This was the intellectual stance taken by Huxley in 1870 in his Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science and followed by other materialist scientists such as Haeckel, Karl W. von Nägeli (1817–1891), John Tyndall (1820–1893), and August Weismann (1834–1914). [big]All of them speculated on different versions of an “evolutionary abiogenesis,” the generation of life from inorganic matter through a process of chemical transformations on the primitive Earth[/big] (Kamminga 1988).
Proposals of evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life were favored by the increasing molecularization of biology at the beginning of twentieth century (Fry 2006; Lazcano 2010). The contributions of Aleksandr I. Oparin (1894–1980) have generally been acknowledged as (a) the final abandonment of spontaneous generation (Farley 1977, p. 171); (b) a philosophical breakthrough assuming a materialistic view—without gaps between inert and living matter, or “continuity thesis” after Fry (1995)—and a Darwinist context—where the emergence of life was not by chance nor a single event but the outcome of a slow evolutionary process during long periods of time (Fry 2000, pp. 77–79); and (c) an epistemological background, shaped by the sociopolitical context, for the new experimental research program of prebiotic chemistry (Lazcano 2010). In 1929, John B. S. Haldane (1892–1964) published a short paper (Haldane 1929) that independently converged with the initial ideas exposed by the Russian biochemist (Oparin 1924) and that retrospectively constitutes the most significant contribution to the field from the western world in the 1920s.
https://rdcu.be/dsJVA
Here endth the lesson. Did you even make it this far? I doubt it. 😉
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez Peretó & Català (and Springer in general) atre merely philosophising in their article.
It isn't a research paper... at best it is a literature review of conjectures and assumptions from the 19th century
Have you heard of the Modern synthesis?
Do you have anything from the 21st century (or even the 20th)
It isn't a research paper... at best it is a literature review of conjectures and assumptions from the 19th century
It is not irrelevant to rethink the meaning and scope of what we term Darwinism
It is, however, unnecessary and irrelevantwe may distinguish five theories that Darwin combined: evolution as such, common descent, gradualism, multiplication of species, and natural selection
None of which have anything to do with abiogenesisHave you heard of the Modern synthesis?
Do you have anything from the 21st century (or even the 20th)
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 You just don’t get do you? Or are you just in denial?
You should stop acting like you have the corner on ‘Evolution’. Your understanding is rudimentary if you don’t understand this.
If this not does spell it out for you then you need to go back to your Biology 101 teacher and get them to explain why ‘evolution’ must be extended to the first creation of life. Unless you’re saying God did it. 😉
Abiogenesis through gradual evolution of autocatalysis into template-based replication
Arthurs:
Polina Pavlinova & Camille N. Lambert
Laboratoire de Biophysique et Evolution, UMR CNRS-ESPCI 8231 Chimie Biologie Innovation, PSL University, Paris, France
Christophe Malaterre
Laboratory of Philosophy of Science (LAPS) and Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada
The transition from non-living matter to living matter must have been enabled by some form of evolution. Indeed, the complexity of the molecular objects required for any chemical system to be functionally on par with what might be intuitively labelled as alive makes their spontaneous appearance extremely unlikely, as does the vastness of the chemical space. This has led to investigations into possible intermediate stages and processes that could account for a gradual transition, and most notably systems capable of Darwinian evolution.
The message here is that there could definitely be multiple ways of implementing Darwinian evolution. The more imaginative we are about devising mechanisms for each of the key Darwinian properties and their integration, the more avenues will open up for achieving some form of Darwinian evolution in the test tube and provide much sought-after experimental evidence for the transition from non-living to living matter.
In this review, we examine how rudimentary forms of evolution may have started in autocatalytic RNA networks and subsequently led to the appearance of RNA replicases. We first summarise experimental realisations of RNA self-reproduction. We then examine how Darwinian properties (variation, reproduction with heredity and selection) may be supported by ligases, recombinases or replicases (polymerases), alone or in reaction networks. This leads us to suggest gradual scenarios for the emergence of evolvable RNA systems and specify constraints on their emergence and evolution. Finally, we discuss challenges and opportunities to build RNA systems capable of some form of Darwinian evolution.
First published: 06 October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14507
You should stop acting like you have the corner on ‘Evolution’. Your understanding is rudimentary if you don’t understand this.
If this not does spell it out for you then you need to go back to your Biology 101 teacher and get them to explain why ‘evolution’ must be extended to the first creation of life. Unless you’re saying God did it. 😉
Abiogenesis through gradual evolution of autocatalysis into template-based replication
Arthurs:
Polina Pavlinova & Camille N. Lambert
Laboratoire de Biophysique et Evolution, UMR CNRS-ESPCI 8231 Chimie Biologie Innovation, PSL University, Paris, France
Christophe Malaterre
Laboratory of Philosophy of Science (LAPS) and Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada
The transition from non-living matter to living matter must have been enabled by some form of evolution. Indeed, the complexity of the molecular objects required for any chemical system to be functionally on par with what might be intuitively labelled as alive makes their spontaneous appearance extremely unlikely, as does the vastness of the chemical space. This has led to investigations into possible intermediate stages and processes that could account for a gradual transition, and most notably systems capable of Darwinian evolution.
The message here is that there could definitely be multiple ways of implementing Darwinian evolution. The more imaginative we are about devising mechanisms for each of the key Darwinian properties and their integration, the more avenues will open up for achieving some form of Darwinian evolution in the test tube and provide much sought-after experimental evidence for the transition from non-living to living matter.
In this review, we examine how rudimentary forms of evolution may have started in autocatalytic RNA networks and subsequently led to the appearance of RNA replicases. We first summarise experimental realisations of RNA self-reproduction. We then examine how Darwinian properties (variation, reproduction with heredity and selection) may be supported by ligases, recombinases or replicases (polymerases), alone or in reaction networks. This leads us to suggest gradual scenarios for the emergence of evolvable RNA systems and specify constraints on their emergence and evolution. Finally, we discuss challenges and opportunities to build RNA systems capable of some form of Darwinian evolution.
First published: 06 October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14507
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez
Let me remind you of the definition of life: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution
So Pavlinova & Lambert are referring to abiogenesis which produces a system capable of Darwinian evolution i.e. life.
They are not addressing evolution, because that is a separate topic. They are addressing the gradual development of a chemical system capable of evolution.
systems capable of Darwinian evolution
Let me remind you of the definition of life: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution
So Pavlinova & Lambert are referring to abiogenesis which produces a system capable of Darwinian evolution i.e. life.
They are not addressing evolution, because that is a separate topic. They are addressing the gradual development of a chemical system capable of evolution.
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 Wrong. Did you not read what I so conveniently posted for you. They are trying to prove evolution can explain abiogenesis. You should be happy about that. Stay blind and ignorant if that makes you sleep better. 😉
achieving some form of Darwinian evolution in the test tube and provide much sought-after experimental evidence for the transition from non-living to living matter.
achieving some form of Darwinian evolution in the test tube and provide much sought-after experimental evidence for the transition from non-living to living matter.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@RuyLopez
That is not what they are saying.
Perhaps we should work through their paper which, incidentally, is a literature review and a summary of thinking from the 19th century, rather than an evidence-based publication of research)
They are trying to prove evolution can explain abiogenesis
That is not what they are saying.
Perhaps we should work through their paper which, incidentally, is a literature review and a summary of thinking from the 19th century, rather than an evidence-based publication of research)
1-25 of 29