…and this is a 
Origin of life
Category: Evolution
Posted on: July 5, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
Comments
Hmm, I always pull the abiogenesis =/= evolution when discussing with creationists, I can't wait to check this little essay out tomorrow.
Posted by: Hez | July 5, 2008 1:00 PM
I always thought abiogenesis was within the same discipline (biology?), but not necessarily a part evolutionary theory, unless we expand it to include abiogenesis. PZ considers it a subset of evolution, in the form of chemical evolution. I think of it as more of an add-on.
It seems that we make unnecessary partitions of most of our fields of study. It's just a historical convention that makes things convenient, things like how to divide up a university into separate departments in some coherent way.
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 5, 2008 1:02 PM
Damn rights. I hate when people say that "Oh, okay, evolution does happen, but because it doesnt explain the origin of life, that means God did it!"
When people dodge the question it just moves the scientific road block of religion to another intersection.
Posted by: Jason | July 5, 2008 1:06 PM
The Migthy PZ is to afraid to go on 1280 the patriot...
ouch!...
Posted by: Joachim Arnerholm | July 5, 2008 1:11 PM
Come on pz, you can crush those Christloving a??ho??les with one arm behind your back. I smell chicken!!!!
Posted by: Joachim Arnerholm | July 5, 2008 1:17 PM
The problem is that creationists will claim that if you can't solve the problem of abiogenesis, then the whole of evolution is bunk.
So I think when evolution defenders attempt the disassociation of abiogenesis from the rest of evolution, it's well intentioned in that they are trying to get creationists to focus on the vast amounts of evidence for evolution independent of how life began in the first place.
Posted by: tacitus | July 5, 2008 1:25 PM
(Joachim: huh?)
Sure, the origin of life was an evolutionary process, and once you had (as must have been the case) replicators competing for limited resources, it had to have included natural selection, perhaps even before we would have considered them (the replicators) "alive." Abiogenesis is best seen as a subset of the evolutionary story writ large; what the creos get wrong is that even if life qua life was dumped on Earth from space, evolution still happened here. We may well never know with much certainty how life got started, but we know damn well what happened once it did.
This is kind of like the well-meaning rhetorical device of "humans are not descended from apes/monkeys; we are all descended from a common ancestor." Truth is that the common ancestor of humans and other extant apes was an ape, and if the term "monkey" has any meaning at all (it doesn't to a monophylomaniacal cladist--hey where's David M. been lately?), then the common ancestor of humans and extant "monkeys" was a "monkey."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 1:30 PM
Very interesting. I have one complaint though: It always disappoints me when truly informative and interesting articles such as this are punctuated with ham-fisted paragraphs about how anyone who doesn't know this information hasn't done enough thinking and doesn't know what they're yammering about. It's unnecessary, and it brings the whole article down a notch in my mind.
But still very good.
Posted by: info_dump | July 5, 2008 1:31 PM
tacitus, I get what you are saying, but to tailor a response on origin-of-life questions to thwart creationists is almost as silly as wanting to change the designation of Theory of Evolution to something like "Fact" or "Law" of evolution. It may appease or salve some factions, but it doesn't reflect the research accurately.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 5, 2008 1:34 PM
"or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is!"
Which logically means that evolutionary science is not restricted to biology, since it also covers the transition from abiotic reproducer to biotic reproducer. Abiotic chemical replication cycles subject to modification are therefore also part of evolutionary biology. And if these are, why not any kind of reproducing entity (memes, language, technology, computer viruses...). Evolutionary biology, then, is just a special case of a more universal evolutionary science.
Posted by: Colugo | July 5, 2008 1:38 PM
colugo,
I'd prefer to say any that replicates has a chance to be explained in Darwinian terms. Everything being evolutionary science may be confusing and be just what somebody like Ben Stein thinks we think.
Posted by: AndrewC | July 5, 2008 1:45 PM
I thought evolution presupposes the existence of life.
It is about how selection changes a population over time or something like that. I'm not qualified to debate this with PZ but I just listened to a Dr. Massimo Pigliucci debate where he seems to make this point.
Posted by: Jason | July 5, 2008 1:45 PM
I saw that article the other day, consider myself chastised for using that disingenuous argument myself, and am impressed with what I didn't know before about the current state of origin of life research. I've saved it so I can go over it in more detail, and will try to read up some more on this exciting research.
But I agree with info_dump that the article is diminished by some of the attitude tantrums.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 5, 2008 1:47 PM
Only the religion afflicted mind can ascribe to a god all that they don't understand or want to undertand. "How is your body able to engage in all the physical workings to keep you alive?" "Duh, I don't know; god takes care of that for me." "Describe "Duh". "Don't Understand How".
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 1:51 PM
"PZ says that sure, big exciting unanswered questions like the origin of life exist in science, but scientists said this first, and furthermore consider them research opportunities, not flaws."
From a New York Times article: "Evolution as a principle is not disputed in the scientific
mainstream, where the term 'theory' does not mean a hunch, but an explanation backed by abundant observation, and where gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding."
The creationists translate every gap in knowledge to be a weakness. Evolution does not have weaknesses. It has opportunities to learn more. I have tried to explain this to creationists but they don't get it. Of course they don't understand anything.
Posted by: BobC | July 5, 2008 1:56 PM
Thanks for the info. I was one of the people who tried to keep abiogenesis and evolution separate. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Posted by: brian | July 5, 2008 2:05 PM
While we justifiably expect that evolutionary forces will be involved in the origin of life and its fair to say we know a considerable amount more about it than "nothing," it is, as a number of commentators at the Panda's Thumb have pointed out, quite correct to say that our confidence in the truth of evolution does not depend on an understanding of abiogenesis. They are not different diciplines but the evidence and inferences for each are independent. Darwin was right to say that his case for common descent was strong, even though he truly knew nothing about the origin of life.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 5, 2008 2:10 PM
To echo the point that several have already made, I think that the "abiogenesis is not evolution" is meant to express the point that the evidence for evolution from a common ancestor is pretty solid, and we have very good reason to believe that all known life has evolved from a common ancestor, even if the exact processes that led to the existence of that common ancestor are not yet completely understood. A typical creationist attack is to claim that science cannot yet answer how the first life came about, therefore all of evolutionary theory must be false.
That said, I have seen many people making the claim that abiogenesis is not evolution and then stop there, seemingly not understanding the point they are supposed to be making.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 5, 2008 2:19 PM
I'm guilty as well, but sometimes I can only take so much incessant rattling about some sky-daddy with magic snapping fingers.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 5, 2008 2:36 PM
All evolution is chemical..
Therefore, all evolution is abiogenisis... ;)
Posted by: shash | July 5, 2008 2:39 PM
As others have written, when creationists attack the theory of evolution for failing to explain how life began it is perfectly legitimate to point out that the theory was proposed as an explanation of how life expanded and diversified over time after it had appeared. Emphasising the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is neither a denial that the two fields of research are closely linked nor is it an attempt to evade answering the question of how life began, it is exposing a strawman.
As for weaseling about the distinction, would PZ say he is working in the field of evolutionary biology or abiogenesis? Nothing of what we have read of his research suggests he is investigating the origins of life itself. There is a clear and present distinction between the two fields and it is not weaseling to make that clear.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | July 5, 2008 3:03 PM
On the subject of flawed responses to anti-evolution drivel, my pet hate is:
Q. If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
A. People didn't evolve from monkeys. They both evolved from a common ancestor.
Whilst the answer is technically correct, it evades the question's central point, and comes across as hair-splitting. It is far better to engage the the challenge head-on and to describe speciation.
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 5, 2008 3:39 PM
We have definitions of words so we can agree on how to use them. The best definition of evolution I know of is: "the change in inherited characteristics of a population of living organisms over time." The key word in this context is "living": by *definition* evolution only occurs to populations of living things. It may well turn out that the same *processes* (imperfect replication, differential success) are involved, but that is a research issue.
The correct answer to creationists is: "yes, evolution does not tell us how life began, but biologists are working on it and we have learned quite a bit." I then ask them if they wish to discuss the relative likelihood of life originating in black smokers or clay substrate. They never respond.
Posted by: Matt Silb | July 5, 2008 3:43 PM
Chiroptera, in post #18 complains:
"A typical creationist attack is to claim that science cannot yet answer how the first life came about, therefore all of evolutionary theory must be false."
I think that whenever a creationist makes such an attack, it is appropriate to point out that the exact origins of many books of the bible are not known. Their argument would thus lead to the conclusion that the entire bible must be bunk. I think they might better be able to see the fallacy of this line of reasoning in this context.
Whether abiogenesis is or isn't included in the definition of biological evolution is just an epistemological choice and is decided for the convenience of whatever is being discussed. After all, what happened, happened and didn't wait for mankind to decide on how to categorize things.
The word 'evolution' has become common parlance and been applied to a broad range of processes, both biological and non-biological, wherein something is changing over time in response to its environment. An excellent current example is the evolution of the automobile industry, which is shuttering SUV plants as fast as they can nail the boards up (so to speak) in response to the cost of fuel.
If this example is held up (by creationists) as an example of intelligent decision making, then that intelligence has certainly demonstrated a total lack of foresight. But then, the bible teaches us that god is far more often surprised, even shocked, by his creation, than he is please, so maybe lack of foresight is exactly what creationists mean by "intelligent" design.
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | July 5, 2008 3:56 PM
Matt, your definition is of biological evolution. The word "evolution" has been used for many other changing systems , including cultural and stellar evolution. Before there were cells that we all would agree were "alive," there were evolving chemical systems that (in retrospect) were "on their way" to life. This process of chemical evolution likely graded imperceptively into true biological evolution, so why draw an imaginary boundary line?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 3:59 PM
Hyperdeath (#22): Actually that answer isn't even technically correct...see my comment #7 above.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 4:02 PM
If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
My reply to this incredibly stupid question from creationists is "Human apes and chimpanzee apes developed from the same ancient ape species."
Posted by: BobC | July 5, 2008 4:10 PM
AIG: I think that whenever a creationist makes such an attack, it is appropriate to point out that the exact origins of many books of the bible are not known. Their argument would thus lead to the conclusion that the entire bible must be bunk. I think they might better be able to see the fallacy of this line of reasoning in this context.
Unfortunately, I think that the fundamentalists feel that the certainty in which they believe about the exact origins of everything (including the books of their Bible) vs. the uncertainty in current scientific knowledge is their ace in the hole.
Although I may just try this argument to see what their reaction really is.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 5, 2008 4:16 PM
I like that one:
Posted by: Daniel R | July 5, 2008 4:29 PM
re # 29
... and it was good.
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 5, 2008 4:57 PM
I agree with many of the commenters here. The point people are trying to make is whether evolution happened is quite independent of how abiogenesis happened, much as how we don't really know the evolutionary history of bats, but can safely say the have a common ancestor with other mammals.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | July 5, 2008 5:16 PM
Sven at #25... wonderful description of what the theory of evolution really encompasses. Since taking the time to really understand for myself what this theory means, this all encompassing definition makes clear and perfect sense.
I think that those (on the side of science) who follow through with the argument that 'evolution doesn't explain the origin of life' have either not thought the theory through completely yet, or are just caught up in semantics.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 5, 2008 5:22 PM
If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
If Americans came from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?
Posted by: Graculus | July 5, 2008 5:24 PM
Graculus@33,
Wouldn't surprise me to see American creobots starting to deny that Americans did come from Europeans. After all, it's well known we're a lot of decadent, socialistic, atheistic, homosexual abortionists who are failing to reproduce and are on the point of being conquered by Islam, so "I didn't come from no European" would seem a logical step ;-)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 5, 2008 5:32 PM
I can abridge and repost the core of my PT comment:
The first point is the consequence of yielding points to anti-scientists or media.
To make evolution dependent on OOL is at the very least premature.
The second point is the consequence of conflating theories.
However you look at science areas, definitions and theories (and the status of abiogenesis), in practice evolution stands on its own. This is why we have a valid theory of evolution already.
The third point is a general observation on systems.
When I point out that how an LCA (or a replicator) came about is an independent issue from evolution, I'll most often do so trying to put over a general characteristic of systems.
In physics (and chemistry) we learn that processes can be specified by a dynamical description and a specific but independent boundary condition. Here, an initial condition, whether first replicator, LCA, vertebrate or tetrapod.
I don't subscribe to Nisbet's ideas. This is what I see when I work, so that is a fact among others I want out there, I don't lie on or hold back facts.
It is a general principle, and we use it daily. For example biologists when making cladiograms, meteorologists when solving for weather predictions, and engineers when making fuel saving cars.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 5, 2008 5:37 PM
I don't think so - at the very least you will have to add descriptions of distributed heredity, like the quasispecies concept that covers fast developing viruses like HIV. Isn't there a discussion whether to follow the lineages of individual biomolecules instead, when you try to go back to the LCA (and possible further, to RNA and earlier worlds)?
So while evolution as a process (or observable fact, if you will) likely cover biogenesis all the way back to incomplete hereditary closure (and you should really try to cover the first abiogenesis part also, if you want to make a general claim), I have doubts that the current theory describes it.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 5, 2008 5:47 PM
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with Prof. Myers and most of the commentors here. If the origin of life is defined as the appearance of the first replicators, then the theory of the origin of life and the theory of the evolution of life are separate and distinct theories in that it doesn't make any difference how the first replicators appeared. Another way to put this is to say that the origin of life is a problem in chemistry, the evolution of life is a problem in biology.
Posted by: SLC | July 5, 2008 6:09 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 6:17 PM
V Spišskej Novej Vsi.
And tomorrow afternoon I'll go to Hradec Králové for the next congress...
I wouldn't say "monkey" has no meaning at all. Just keep it out of formal nomenclature -- unless of course you include yourself and all the other apes among the monkeys (by equating "monkeys" with Anthropoidea).
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2008 6:56 PM
As much as you and Nick have important points to make here, PZ, I think you guys are to some extent throwing people who argue in good faith under the bus, when what you guys are really differing about is a matter of emphasis. There are a lot of other important reasons why people separate evolution from abiogensis that you ignore:
1) Historically, Darwin's theory was not proposed in order to explain the origin of life, but rather the diversity of species, and the validity of his arguments did not and does not rest in any way on how one thinks life first began. This is because:
2) Logically, an intelligent origin of life would not invalidate fully naturalistic evolution, so linking the two things, as creationists try to do, is simply unjustified.
3) There are most certainly different levels of knowledge about the origin of life vs. evolution. The origin of life is a historical event that happened at one extremely distant era in time, leaving very little direct evidence of exactly how it happened: it's highly likely that we may end up with lots of plausible possibilities as to how life began with no way to be certain exactly which one was "the" one. In contrast, the record for specifics on evolution is far more robust, and it's also an ongoing process, with a decent amount of continuity, that we can see happening today. There are certainly elements we may never know, but this is true to a far lesser extent.
And so on...
You and Nick are making good points in that none of these things should lead people to say things that imply that the origin of life is not in the domain of biology, bio-chem, or even science, or that we don't know anything about it, or that evolution and abiogenesis are differences in kind when it comes down to the specific mechanisms. But I don't think a significant number of people really mean or argue those things when they say that abiogenesis and evolution are different and independent matters.
What you guys don't like, I think, is the implication that abiogensis is somehow in another category of science that is sufficiently fuzzy such that it legitimizes religious additions and assertions, or that it has some mysterious character that blocks future progress, and makes current progress more questionable than elsewhere in science. That's a fair point, but not one worth going overboard on.
Posted by: Bad | July 5, 2008 7:06 PM
#36, agreed. It's when considering what the PROCESS of evolution entails that it makes sense that abiogenesis is included in this process. Perhaps how the theory of evolution is defined should be clarified for this argument to hold true. Hence my note that semantics can easily confuse interpretation of the theory.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 5, 2008 7:21 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 7:22 PM
SLC @ 37 Problem? What problem? I accept it as fact becuase that is the way it evolved. It should not be defined as a problem, but just not having all the facts due to immense time and changes we could not observe at the present time. There is no god. No problem there either.
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 8:01 PM
I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.
Weasel, schmeasel. PZ, if your point is that abiogenesis is a far more robust research program than the creationists would have folks believe, and that we shouldn't be afraid to say so, I've got no truck with that.
But if you want to portray abiogenesis as somehow essential to evolution itself, it seems to me you are overselling Nick's comments for rhetorical effect.
After all, NCSE and UCMP both properly distinguish abiogenesis from TENS (evolution by natural selection). Here's a typical example of this at work:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml
Are you saying NCSE and UCMP are weaseling on this point?
If so, I gently demur. That's not running away from the hard question, it's a matter of honestly distinguishing between a speculative research program (abiogenesis) and a scientific theory (TENS). They don't enjoy the same ontological status, and it seems to me that we run the risk of slipping into a custom-made noose whenever we use 'Evolution' (with a capital 'E'!) to refer blandly to any and all dynamic historical processes.
After all, conflation between the well-established and the not-so-certain risks giving lay people the impression we are playing a shell game. Our foes will be quick to seize upon this point. Why play into their hands?
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 5, 2008 8:32 PM
Are you saying NCSE and UCMP are weaseling on this point?
I think the confusion lies in the fact that whatever form abiogenesis takes should leave a demonstrable imprint molecularly that will have an impact on what specific predictions will be made (and be likely).
in that sense, it's quite important and relevant to the theory of evolution as a whole.
just to be simplistic, if replicators were confirmed to be based on the RNA model, vs. the "mineral" model, the predictions that would be made wrt to inherent constraints, among other things, would be quite different.
That said, a fuzzy knowledge of the origins of self-replicators hardly means that we can't learn much about how evolution itself actually works.
so, one can indeed isolate the importance of abiogenesis when studying change withing extant populations themselves, while still realizing the importance of understanding abiogenesis for what the implications might be overall, and what new predictions we might make as we study modes of inheritance.
Our foes will be quick to seize upon this point. Why play into their hands?
there is reality, and then there is what the delusional will make of it.
should we ignore reality out of fear the delusional will intentionally misintrepret what is noted for their own ends?
Did you suggest PZ not criticize Expelled and instead ignore it, like several other scientists and journalists who shall go unnamed?
At this point, I'm sure you understand why PZ chose to go on the attack, and deliberate expose the mind-numbing "wrongness" of everything presented in that charade of a movie, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 5, 2008 8:58 PM
... think of it this way, Scott:
take yourself back to when we didn't know exactly what DNA was (long before Watson-Crick).
Is knowing the structure of DNA important to the theory of evolution? Can you see how different predictions are made based on knowing more about the exact nature of the primary molecule of inheritance?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 5, 2008 9:01 PM
The idea that evolution only applies to "life" while abiogenesis involves "non-life" presupposes that life is a well-defined concept, and that there isn't a lot of gray area. If we were to be able to examine things far back enough, we'd certainly find examples that would be unclear whether we should call them life, or just a complex chain reaction.
Self-replication as well is an extremely fuzzy concept. Are these -- http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/may05/selfrep.ws.html -- really self replicating robots if they need sophisticated robot parts as a raw material? Does fire self replicate? What about "non-vertical dominoes"?
Seems to me that the principle of natural selection certainly applies to things other than what we now know as "life". Its just due to lack of imagination if we can't imagine that life could have started as a chemical chain reaction that was naturally selected into something more sophisticated.
Posted by: robbrown | July 5, 2008 9:24 PM
Abiogenesis is the process of life from non-life so it is by definition BOTH chemistry AND evolutionary biology ...It's not black or white, it's a huge grey area, different disciplines describing a plethora of shifting, dynamic, mutually interdependant, interlocking, interconnecting, processes...a bit like an ecosystem...
Posted by: PeteK | July 5, 2008 9:33 PM
I have to disagree PZ. First let me say what I do *agree* with. And that is you shouldn't (if you can help it) beg off the question.
However, lets face it. The only reason creationists bring it up is to derail any discussion on evolution, not because they give a damn about auto-catalytic networks and the like.
I say abiogenesis and evolution are really quite different disciplines that do address quite different issues. How many times do you suppose you or other evolutionary biologists call up the local abiogenesis expert asking for information pertinent to your research? Or vice versa? I think thats an indication that the link between the two disciplines is not well traveled. At least not yet
You don't need to have a clue about abiogenesis in order to study and try to comprehend the history life over the Phanerozoic. Or the reverse.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 5, 2008 10:00 PM
You don't need to have a clue about abiogenesis in order to study and try to comprehend the history life over the Phanerozoic.
see the post I JUST made wrt to Scott's complaints above.
can you see why you are picking a narrow view of separation?
It is indeed like saying that those studying the form and function of the molecules of inheritance were irrelevant to the study of evolution.
Knowing the pathway(s) self-replicators took on the road to becoming DNA could have many implications for various predictions affecting the realm of evolutionary theory, regardless of the fact that information isn't necessary to understand how a particular mechanism of evolution works (for example, selection).
There is no real harm in pointing this out, as any creationist proposing that abiogenesis arose from the will of a deity would still have to make predictions about what happens AFTER, just like a scientist would, and since they simply can't (and they've had thousands of years to do so)...
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 5, 2008 10:10 PM
"see the post I JUST made wrt to Scott's complaints above.
can you see why you are picking a narrow view of separation?"
In a word, No.
"It is indeed like saying that those studying the form and function of the molecules of inheritance were irrelevant to the study of evolution."
I disagree. I would say an understanding of how the genetic code arose is irrelevant to applications of population genetics.
I can understand as well, that knowledge of how DNA, transcription and all of that machinery has contributed mightily to figuring out issues as diverse as descent and the development of novel structures. However, you can do all that and not have a clue as to how DNA came to be.
"Knowing the pathway(s) self-replicators took on the road to becoming DNA could have many implications for various predictions affecting the realm of evolutionary theory, regardless of the fact that information isn't necessary to understand how a particular mechanism of evolution works (for example, selection)."
Certainly, an understand of abiogenesis will help us understand why the genetic code is the way it is, and certainly that will enhance our overall understanding of how things came to be the way they are. But they are still separate disciplines.
"There is no real harm in pointing this out, as any creationist proposing that abiogenesis arose from the will of a deity would still have to make predictions about what happens AFTER, just like a scientist would, and since they simply can't (and they've had thousands of years to do so)..."
I don't think there is harm in pointing out what knowledge of Abiogenesis stands to benefit our understanding of biological evolution. The harm comes in when you allow the creationists to muddy the waters and suggests that evolution doesn't make sense except in the light of Abiogenesis. In which case it does serve to point out this isn't true, and that they are largely separate disciplines.
After making that distinction, a brief survey of what we have figured out regarding abiogenesis and how ID utterly fails to address the issue becomes that much more effective.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 5, 2008 11:50 PM
The harm comes in when you allow...
LOL
and how would you propose one go about "disallowing" creationists, or anyone for that matter, espousing an ignorant opinion on the matter?
I disagree. I would say an understanding of how the genetic code arose is irrelevant to applications of population genetics.
so, DNA structure is irrelevant to how genes are coded, and how genes code are irrelevant to population genetics.
uh, sure. somehow, I rather think any teacher of population genetics would seriously disagree with you.
open any population genetics text you care to, and tell me whether they ignore molecular genetics.
largely separate disciplines.
..but not entirely, and that's the point. It fucking doesn't matter one whit WHAT creationists think about the relationship between abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
I don't listen to my dog about his opinions on how to fix my car, either.
The implications of which particular theory of abiogenesis is actually correct reach far beyond abiogenesis itself. Those implications are not even conceivable by the ignorati, not having any real knowledge of any related field or related subject matter to begin with.
in short, it really doesn't matter WHAT is said, creobots will inevitably twist it towards their own ends, regardless.
you might as well be as accurate as possible about it, for the people out there who actually know something about the relevant subject matter.
otherwise, all you are doing is FRAMING.
shall we go into why framing in science is bad, again?
'cause if so, I think PZ wrote half a dozen threads on the subject I'll just link to.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 6, 2008 12:52 AM
I always think when I hear people argueing that we havent figured out how life evolved from chemicals,and havent succeeded to recreate the process in a lab,that this whole idea of attempting to recreate the conditions and the actual processes that led to abiogenesis are futile,because there must be an almost unlimited number of possibilities of how amino acids could have formed,how a genetic code could have come into existence etc.I cannot believe that there is but only one singular mechanism to the origin of life,so even if we figure out one way,that is not going to mean that is what actually happened.
On a personal note,every time I read or hear of abiogenesis,the scene from the last Star Trek-TNG episode comes to mind where Q teleports Picard back to primordial earth and scoops up a handful of goo proclaiming that here is where life is about to form.....
Posted by: clinteas | July 6, 2008 5:30 AM
I have to admit, before reading this, and the subsequent link to Panda's Thumb, I was one of the "unwashed" who went out of my way to separate abiogenesis and evolution when arguing with creationists. But having read the data, I can see why such a position is indeed a "cop-out"... as there is plenty of available data on abiogenesis as a sub-set of evolutionary theory...
Truth is, I didn't have all the latest information to argue cogently on the subject of abiogenesis... so simply separating it from evolution made it easy to not have to explain that lack of knowledge. Shame on me. I feel better armed to argue the subject, and now have a decent refernce to point to... thanks for the link, PZ.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 6, 2008 11:14 AM
If people evolved from monkeys...
I think that's only some of us and that there's a misprint for others: creationists clearly evolved from donkeys. Or some other ass.
A better question would be "if intelligent life evolved, why are there still creationists about?".
Posted by: Sam C | July 6, 2008 12:18 PM
Icthyic (#46) makes an interesting point:
... think of it this way, Scott:
take yourself back to when we didn't know exactly what DNA was (long before Watson-Crick).
Is knowing the structure of DNA important to the theory of evolution? Can you see how different predictions are made based on knowing more about the exact nature of the primary molecule of inheritance?
Well, the first thing I would say is that I am not saying that abiogenesis research is not germane to evolutionary biology. Obviously, knowing exactly how DNA replicates is of great significance, and comparative genomics developed from that understanding has provided an outstanding independent way to test evolutionary claims, and as such is now part and parcel of evolutionary biology...today.
However,there was a time when DNA's structure and, indeed, identity were not known, as when Schrodinger speculated about the possible existence of 'an aperiodic crystal' capable of encoding information. This was before there was even such a thing as information theory.
Even so, it would've been acceptable on first principles (which is to say, the general logic of evolutionary theory) to predict that organisms which did a better job of efficiently and reliably encoding information would leave more offspring. As I recall, Watscon, Crick and Wilkins have all made comments to that effect: they were not hostile to Darwin by any means! Yet, in the middle of World War II, there was indeed a time when not just the structure, but the identity of that 'aperiodic crystal' was purely speculative and did not enjoy the same ontological status as the emerging modern synthesis.
Yet, what if, say, in 1951 Watson and his contemporaries had oversold the possible existence of an information-storage molecule as a 'fact' that 'proved' natural selection? They certainly would've had some tantalizing results and observations to support the speculative hypothesis (Chargaff's Rule, Avery's experiment, etc.), but they would've been out on a limb, conflating not only different fields of study but (far more importantly) blurring their distinctive ontological status. That they didn't do this (and that abiogenesis research programs tend not to do this) should be instructive.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 6, 2008 12:51 PM
Thankyou for bringing this up again PZ, you are right. Tacitus - #6 - Your first sentence sums it up perfectly.
It's all good fun to argue amongst your 'sciency' selves about a difference, but when you constantly shoot one another in the foot, to the generally ignorant American like me, goddidit sounds just about as good.
This may be where Dawkins comes off as arrogant to a lot of people, he doesn't get how stupid the public is over here. PZ has been in the trenches with us and knows you have to start at 8:00 am day one, or the bottom falls out.
Isn't there any kind of an overview the community can agree on?
Posted by: Patricia | July 6, 2008 1:08 PM
"The harm comes in when you allow...
"LOL
and how would you propose one go about "disallowing" creationists, or anyone for that matter, espousing an ignorant opinion on the matter?"
You don't. What you do is you prevent creationists from derailing your explanations and discussions of evolution. I take it you don't have a whole lot of experience debating creationists outside of a few posts here and there on the internet.
I said: I disagree. I would say an understanding of how the genetic code arose is irrelevant to applications of population genetics.
"so, DNA structure is irrelevant to how genes are coded, and how genes code are irrelevant to population genetics."
Which is not what I said. Let me rephrase with littler words. Not understanding how DNA came to be is not an impediment to understanding how it functions.
When you grow up a little bit and are actually prepared to read and respond to what people actually write, we can continue this conversation.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 6, 2008 2:46 PM
take yourself back to when we didn't know exactly what DNA was (long before Watson-Crick).
Is knowing the structure of DNA important to the theory of evolution? Can you see how different predictions are made based on knowing more about the exact nature of the primary molecule of inheritance?
Wrong analogy. Knowing that, say, Linus Pauling might have discovered the structure of DNA first if the U.S. State Department had not withheld his passport would not aid in making predictions about evolution.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Awesome essay. I've always wondered how you get the first self-replicating molecules - it just seemed so damn hard. But now I see!
You just need a hetero-hexameter (an ABABAB ring,) with strong affinity at each end (so you get the ABAB thing, and the possibility of self-attachment to make the ring.) Then, even slight preference for AB lateral attachment means you make tubes! Water motion, or whatever, splits the tubes in two, and both parts replicate happly.
Wow, simple replication with just two basic molecules. I'm a buyer now.
Posted by: gorobei | July 6, 2008 3:46 PM
A few days ago I posted a short outline of OOL research as a comment to Nick's PT thread
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html#comment-160942
Darwin saw that the origin of life was independent of his theory, and I see it as such today. However, Darwin also observed in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker (1871) wrote, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
Later in the same letter, he observed,
"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."
Today we do indeed "think of the origin of matter" and we also have considerable information on the origin of life.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | July 6, 2008 4:52 PM
@ LisaJ:
Agreed, as long as it is clear that using theory isn't the same as arguing semantics.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 6, 2008 5:16 PM
I (as layman) prefer to abide by the natural definition - life is biological systems that participate in evolution:
So viruses can apply.
When LGT and other contingencies starts to wipe out general lineages, one can trace back further through organelle and molecular lineages, such as ribosomes. But OTOH you start to loose control over what is "hereditary" in the definition of evolution as common descent. Possibly that is reacquired when you reach back to the first replicators.
Btw, a perfect first replicator would be an odd beast, wouldn't it? Selection, no variation. (Unless something externally produces new variants for the competition.)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 6, 2008 5:25 PM
Uups, I meant biological populations, not systems.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 6, 2008 5:26 PM
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
Later in the same letter, he observed,
"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."
Indeed how many turtles down do we wanna go?
We routinely give creationists crap when they start babbling about Big Bang in an evolution thread. Allowing them to babble about abiogenesis in a evolution thread without pointing out they have little do with each other as scientific disciplines and address fundamentally different issues is a mistake. As far as I am concerned, that is muddying the issues.
I haven't seen PZ's musings on *framing*. I do read this blog frequently, but not religiously (I'm sure PZ appreciates the little dig here ). It seems to me we are dealing with issues that involve differing levels of abstraction and/or are logically separated. At the risk of repeating myself, knowledge of abiogenesis will help us understand a number of things. Understanding the change in life on Earth during the Phanerozoic, for example, is not one of them.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 6, 2008 8:24 PM
I too disagree that OOL is explained within the framework of the modern synthesis.
It can't be denied that we have a number of competing theories as to how life originated, but only one theory of evolution.
I agree however this is no reason to concede the ground to religious explanations, for me OOL the most exciting area of research in biology today.
Posted by: jo5ef | July 7, 2008 8:30 AM
Well, I only check this blog on my lunch breaks at work, so I missed the chance to comment on this when it first appeared. And it looks like several people have already beaten me to the points I was going to make. I like aleph1=c's comment from all the way up near the beginning of the thread:
And I also like Stuart Weinstein's latest comment, especially this part:
Every event is contingent on events before it, and all the distinctions we make in fields of study are arbitrary to some degree. For all the reasons others have already posted, the distinction between OOL and biological evolution seems like a reasonable place to make one of those splits. It's still an arbitrary distinction, and they're still related fields, but what's so wrong with that?
For the sake of arguing with creationists, I have had personal luck by separating the two fields. It breaks it down into manageable chunks to teach them. Most of the creationists I talk to are intelligent - they're just ignorant when it comes to evolution, victims of indoctrination and a poor education system (intelligence may not be representative of Internet trolls, but most people you talk to in day to day life aren't Internet trolls). Once you show them the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, it really is hard to (intelligently) argue against it. Once you've crossed that bridge, then you can start approaching how life on this planet got started in the first place.
Posted by: Fatboy | July 7, 2008 1:44 PM
If you think in terms of math theory TToNS covers n and n+1 for n >= 1. Abiogenisis is for n from 0 to 1. Non-replicator to replicator.
If there are "chemicals" that obey the rules that allow natural selection then they are "life" and there is nothing a-biological about them. Hell we are chemicals. What makes us special is we are collections of chemicals that can replicate.
Well that settles things. Not. I think Gould, Dawkins and many others have spent too much time clarifying and worrying about this for us to trust you to undo it. Especially since you are just plain wrong.
Your linked post is titled "Life is chemistry" and yet you seem not to have fully absorbed that fact when you write there "I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it." Hint: It's NOT a subset. The study of chemical evolution1 is the study of life, period.
Your "heresy" was taught in my high school biology class back in the 70's. Well the part about evolutionary theory being about chemical evolution. Not the part about abiogenisis being about descent with modification.
Abiogenosis is indeed a separate issue or set of issues. 1) What was the most probable "first replicator" on earth and how did it arise? 2) Can we replicate conditions that result in abiogenosis? 3) Can we find evidence of conditions where abiogenisis first occured? 4) Is the step from non-replicating chemical processes to replicating ones easy or hard? 5) Was the first replicator DNA based or something else?
Abiogenisis is the theory that the first replicators were created spontaneously from NON-evolutionary natural processes. A hypothesis that is true to the best of our knowledge as we have no other viable candidates.
The theory of natural selection includes 1)Replication 2)Variation 3) Mutation and 4) Fecudity above carrying capacity. Natural selection happens without abiogenisis. Even if "gods" or humans created creatures from scratch with these attributes they would evolve without any intervention.
Abiogenisis is not a subset of the theory of natural selection and isn't about chemical evolution1 in the sense of descent with modification. It might be about chemical evolution2 in the sense of chemical change. But then again most chemistry is about that. Study fire and you are studying a chemical evolution2 in that sense.
I see nothing good coming of including abiogenisis in evolution, and plenty of bad. Besides it's ultimately wrong.
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 7, 2008 8:52 PM
Yeah, and is quite embarrassing when you're wrong.
Then again I'm a weasel because I still believe there is some uncertainty to the issue of the degree of anthropological global warming, or should I say a
holocaustdenier. Not to mention that I don't buy the idea that it is problem that should even be a priority, let alone a political one.Posted by: Brian Macker | July 7, 2008 9:06 PM
BTW, I can and have written a computer simulation of natural selection. I can't yet do so convincingly with abiogenisis.
That's because they are different problems. In the case of abiogenisis I have to make a simulated world with a simple set of rules that does not have built in replication in which replicators spontaneously happen.
Completely different problems.
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 7, 2008 9:15 PM
Then again I'm a weasel because I still believe there is some uncertainty to the issue of the degree of anthropological global warming, or should I say a holocaust denier. Not to mention that I don't buy the idea that it is problem that should even be a priority, let alone a political one.
not weasel, just a moron, and a troll.
as usual, contributing nothing of relevance.
like you thinking:
BTW, I can and have written a computer simulation of natural selection. I can't yet do so convincingly with abiogenisis.
has relevance to anything.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 7, 2008 9:23 PM
Ichthyic, LOL to your entire comment.
They are based on entirely different algorith