The limits of evolution: the origin of life itself is still a mystery

[geek tragedy]

Evolution, i.e. the changing of one form of life into another, is a fact and serves as the foundation of the scientific study of biology.

However, evolution is NOT a theory of how non-living matter became alive. While there are scientific theories on that, we just don't know how exactly life itself got started.

So, it is a distortion on the part of the wingnuts who try to confuse the evolution issue with the origin of life issue.

Maybe the origin of life on Earth was a result of random chemical interactions in primordial goo. Maybe God(dess) waved a magic wand. Maybe an alien version of Johnny Appleseed sprinkled the first seeds of life here.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, that's all irrelevant and besides the point. Once there was life on earth, we KNOW that evolution has occurred and is the cornerstone for understanding everything about life from a scientific point of view.

[mike_c]

1. well said....

:toast: from a biologist.

[sui generis]

2. not quite besides the point

to those who argue in favor of "intelligent design" they use these kinds of straw arguments to bolster their view:

That some complexity is irreducible
That the origin of life is proof of ID, etc.

It's the foot in the door - if you can agree with the premise that irreducible complexity and inexplicable origins means a higher power had a hand (or flipper or whatever) in it, then it gets easier to swallow other whoppers.

[geek tragedy]

4. As secular rationalists, we need to make the distinction clear.

I have personal beliefs about the origin of life on Earth--that it was nothing but random particles joining in a happy coincidence.

However, that's my personal belief, not scientific fact.

Clearly delineating where personal belief stops and hard science begins is essential for secular rationalists to carry the day.

If we're going to get into the "origin of life" then it should be in a philosophical context.

[sui generis]

7. right there with you on this one

but my experience with irrational people who think they're being reasonable is that they re-write the rules whenever they think the rules are about to be broken.

Hence, they will claim a "new and improved" definition of science, one that only they are qualified to administer. Oh and that pesky "theory" thing. Ultimately they flounder and accuse you of having faith in science before sparks start flying from their ears.

I don't believe we will ever convert any of them to reality no matter how pure the reason and no matter how hard the evidence.

[geek tragedy]

8. No, but rationality and science WILL prevail if we stick to our guns

and our principles.

It's not the worst thing to let them resolve ambiguities with spiritual muck. Just make sure they don't try to imply ambiguities where there are none.

[Beetwasher]

3. Of Course It's A Distortion, That's All They Have, Lies and Distortions

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

5. The origin of life is something I've thought about a bit...

and, from what I see, I think new ideas, principles on a par with Evolution, are required. For example:

Imagine a primordial goo of random amino acids. Now imagine there are various polymers, simple proteins, that could spontaneously form from these amino acids. Which of these proteins would nature select? Answer: the protein that locks up the most amino acids for the longest period of time. So pre-life may be a competition to see which structures lock up limited resources. Could enzymes be the first predator?

The Origin of Life is a field that is rare - one area of inquiry that is as wide open today as, say, biology was in the 17th century. An area of thought where conceptual as well as technical breakthroughs are required.

[geek tragedy]

6. It's definitely worth exploring scientifically, and we may know the answer

one day--to a certain extent.

[PurgedVoter]

9. Intelligent Design doesn't need teaching.

I am a believer, and I was raised by a Professor of Biology. I don't see the usefulness of teaching intelligent design.
To make this plain and simple, religious people who understand evolution have no problem with the concept that God uses evolution to produce what he desires produced.

However teaching intelligent design is teaching religion. Teaching religion is trampling the faith of those who believe differently. Teaching intelligent design is in fact anti-faith. Showing flaws in evidence or unanswered questions is great. That should be done in all advanced science disciplines.

Anyone with faith or evidence divine, will assume intelligent design and needs no such education added. The problem here is simple, the issue of intelligent design is intended to mobilize people of faith against people of thought. My own belief is that faith without thought is superstition. If one does not question ones beliefs than one shows a true lack of faith. Leaders that direct followers to ignore evidence, thought and logic are cultists. This is true in science, religion and politics. Inevitably they teach division, anger and hate.

[Splatter Phoenix]

10. Absolutely!

What about the Intelligent Design of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? You scientific heathen, SHE CREATED ALL OF US. You MUST teach that scientifically she is invisible because LO we cannot see her! And it's...err...a THEORY that she's pink.

[PurgedVoter]

11. Pink Theory?

I can't go with the pink theory as is implies imperfect invisibility!

[Dr Fate]

12. I agree- if folks want to believe in "Guided Evolution" that is fine.

But changes in gene frequencies occur now and have been occuring over the millions of years since life began- its an undisputable fact.