Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum

Thread: Theory of evolution

  1. #1 Theory of evolution 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Why doesn't the current theory of evolution explain chemical evolution when the past theory claimed to have explained this?

    Monomer accumulation
    The "soup" theory relies on the assumption proposed by Darwin that in an environment with no pre-existing life, organic molecules may have accumulated and provided an environment for chemical evolution.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    What do you mean?


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    What do you mean?
    I mean that Darwin supported chemical evolution and the current theory of evolution does not.

    Why is that if this is science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    What specific do you mean by chemical evolution? Can you give examples of what you mean?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    What specific do you mean by chemical evolution? Can you give examples of what you mean?
    I gave a link.

    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This means that life evolved from chemicals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    Abiogenesis is about how life came about. Evolution is about what happened afterwards. What bit of this don't you understand? Evolution doesn't need to include abiogenesis, and it doesn't. Just like abiogenesis doesn't include evolution. However, they go hand-in-hand and in no way contradict each other. It's just that one goes after the other.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Chinglu, can you point to where in Darwin's works he asserted that evolution was also covering what is now called abiogenisis?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Why doesn't the current theory of evolution explain chemical evolution when the past theory claimed to have explained this?

    Monomer accumulation
    The "soup" theory relies on the assumption proposed by Darwin that in an environment with no pre-existing life, organic molecules may have accumulated and provided an environment for chemical evolution.


    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    By the "past theory" you seem to be referring to some speculation and assumptions by Darwin?. He had no information about prebiotic Earth and hence no way of developing a theory. A guess is not a theory.

    We are now in the process of developing and testing various possible mechanisms in order to develop one or more theories of abiogenesis. At some point, if they have enough support, then "chemical evolution" might be merged into the wider theory of evolution.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    chinglu, Darwin's speculations - and they were very clearly speculations - about the origin of life were contained in a letter to Joseph Hooker. They were quite separate from his theory of evolution which he had addressed in detail in the various editions of Origin and in other works. His speculation on abiogenesis was absolutely not a part of the theory of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    While the point about Darwin's original theory referring only to the evolution of already living beings is of course well taken,

    and convenience in so easily handling the latest round of creationist bs is a significant benefit,

    excluding abiogenesis from the events addressable via Darwinian theory is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Right now Darwinian theory offers by far the most likely framework for explaining abiogenesis, and that is not controversial - it is the theory framing most of the research in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Yes. I think we all agree that the lines between abiogenesis and evolution is necessarily blurred. Nevertheless, they denote different paradigms of research with the blurring as a given.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    While the point about Darwin's original theory referring only to the evolution of already living beings is of course well taken,

    and convenience in so easily handling the latest round of creationist bs is a significant benefit,

    excluding abiogenesis from the events addressable via Darwinian theory is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Right now Darwinian theory offers by far the most likely framework for explaining abiogenesis, and that is not controversial - it is the theory framing most of the research in the field.
    I agree with everything you have said here, but I was addressing Chinglu's apparent claim that Darwin had made abiogenesis a central part of his theory. He hadn't. As with many other aspects of his theory, like the then paucity of the fossil record, he had serious doubts and concerns. Even though the full complexity of cells was not then appreciated Darwin recgonside, as is evident in his private correspondence, the huge gulf that existed between 'simple' chemicals and the first functioning cells.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Chinglu, can you point to where in Darwin's works he asserted that evolution was also covering what is now called abiogenisis?
    Certainly, it's on me

    In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[8] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[9] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    The thing is the letters are not part of his formalized evolutionary theory that he published. He may have speculated on it a little but he did not address it in "On the origin of species"
    pyoko likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Darwin speculated on the origin of life, but was quite explicit about saying he didn't know. It was never part of the theory of evolution and he only wrote about the origin of life in a letter, he never published anything on it and it did not appear in the Origin of Species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. the Evolution theory... how much evidence is there?
    By question for you in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: March 4th, 2014, 07:43 AM
  2. Evolution Theory
    By fcaltai in forum Biology
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: June 7th, 2012, 05:32 AM
  3. Theory Of Evolution
    By TheWonderer in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2010, 08:28 AM
  4. The theory of evolution!!
    By DaBOB in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 12th, 2006, 01:46 PM
  5. Theory Of Evolution
    By alex_mtl in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 1st, 2006, 02:57 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •