Is Evolution responsible for the origin of life?

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-25 06:22pm

An Ancient said that if I went and asked anyone on the street or on SD.net, they would say evolution was responsible for the origin of life, while I said it was abiogenesis http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... 41&page=11

So, here's a poll, what is responsible for the origin of life, evolution, or abiogenesis?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-01-25 06:30pm

Your interlocutor is woefully confused about the entire concept of evolution, let alone any specifics of it as a scientific theory. Evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about the changes in lifeforms once they already exist.

Abiogenesis is probably the strongest theory about how inorganic compounds became recognisable as organic life.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-01-25 06:32pm

By definition, abiogenesis.

Evolution kicks in once you've got something which replicates imperfectly. But by that point... <voice type="scientist" subtype="mad" effect="echo">It's alive!</voice>

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-01-25 06:34pm

Ghetto edit yo!

"Changes in populations of lifeforms" would probably be more accurate.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-01-25 06:43pm

An Ancient said that if I went and asked anyone on the street or on SD.net, they would say evolution was responsible for the origin of life, while I said it was abiogenesis

On the street, you probably have a 50% or more chance of hearing "God did it."

Anyway. It's clearly abiogenesis, and I don't know why people would expect SDNetters to think otherwise.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-01-25 06:48pm

OmegaGuy wrote:An Ancient said that if I went and asked anyone on the street or on SD.net, they would say evolution was responsible for the origin of life, while I said it was abiogenesis http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... 41&page=11

So, here's a poll, what is responsible for the origin of life, evolution, or abiogenesis?

Umm, the process by which living processes develop from abiotic inputs is abiogenesis. The process by which life adapts to conditions and selective pressures which it is subjected to is evolution. Evolution only works on already-living systems, and has relatively little bearing on abiotic systems.

He is probably correct in assuming that the random moron off the street would say that life originated via evolution, though. However, I'm disappointed at his estimation of the relative mental ability of SD.net denizens.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-25 06:58pm

This is trivially easy for anyone with a basic grasp of evolutionary biology. If they have heard of abiogenesis, then it will fit the bill. Most would say evolution if only because they don't know the proper definition for what they mean. At least, in my ideal world they would. It does seem there's a greater chance of "Goddidit!" being thrown out there rather than something scientific.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-01-25 07:10pm

garch, clicked the wrong button...

sorry about screwing up the poll.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2006-01-25 07:16pm

I will admit to not knowing Abiogenesis but I at least knew it was not evolution since evolution describes what happens when there is reproduction so how could it be an origin?

I may not be a scientist but your ancient underestimates my understanding of the world I feel. Expecting us to be as wrong as those we like to deride no doubt.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-25 07:23pm

OmegaGuy wrote:An Ancient said that if I went and asked anyone on the street or on SD.net, they would say evolution was responsible for the origin of life, while I said it was abiogenesis http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... 41&page=11

So, here's a poll, what is responsible for the origin of life, evolution, or abiogenesis?

If you mean An Anicient said it as opposed to An Ancient, I wouldn't be surprised. This guy doesn't understand Occam's Razor and argues that the technology involved in Noah's Ark is at least equivalent to modern technology.

That being said, the abiogenesis theory is the most in favour at the moment. Other competing theories include the panspermia (not to be confused with direct panspermia theory).

Despite what moronic fundies say, the first life isn't even as complicated as a single cell. It only needs to be a simple self replicating molecule. The RNA world theory suggests that RNA would be the early molecule before evolution replaces it with superior DNA.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-25 07:25pm

Yeah that's the guy I was talking about.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-01-25 07:26pm

Are those two evolution bits misclicks?

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-25 07:28pm

Zero132132 wrote:Are those two evolution bits misclicks?

Matt has admitted that he made a misclick (assuming he misclicked evolution). Now I wonder who is the other person who voted for evolution.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-25 07:36pm

You're submitting this poll to that moron as evidence, I presume? Well I for one am kind've pissed that he thinks this forum's posters are less intelligent. His statement would be more accurate for SB itself, and would be high-balling it for the real world, where most people say dog did it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-25 07:37pm

...aaaaaand, I misclicked. Son of a bitch.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-01-25 08:11pm

What is the point of this thread? I cannot see how this can possibly be a point of contention.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-25 08:13pm

Well I made it to ask the people on SD.net since An Ancient said they would all say evolution not abiogenesis so I decided to ask.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-01-25 08:22pm

What a goddamned moron that guy is. Oh, an abiogenesis is the origin of life, hell, you can work it out from the name.

Oh and Vendetta, your definition of abiogenesis is confusing. Inorganic compounds becoming organic life? The mixture of vernacular and chemistry terms there get confusing.

Probably better to say that abiogenesis is the emergence of an organic self replicator from protobiological organic chemistry.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-01-26 12:28am

Also, anyone who claims that how life originated is relevent to evolution, you can laugh in their face and say that they should stop making irrelevent claims.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-26 07:58am

Perusing through more of Anicients moronic rantings. Unsupported claims about new scientific theories only accepted when the old scientists who opposed it die out -

Perhaps he might like to explain how most physicists adopted quantum mechanics while those who opposed it ie Einstein was still alive and would not die out for years yet.

Perhaps he might also like to explain why doctors in less a generation now acknowledge that ulcers are caused a bacteria H. Pylori rather than stress.

While we are at it, can he explain why evolution is accepted in the scientific community while those oppose it, ie creationists are still alive and kicking.

Next he brings up more unsupported claims, such as scientists not following the scientific method properly despite the presence of peer review, followed by allegations of appeal to motive against scientists.

In short, more attempts to ignore reality. But then this is the same guy who refused to acknowledge a Minbari Sharlin being destroyed by a 2 MT bomb, so there you go.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-26 09:17am

Ranting about how new theories only gain support with generational changes, eh? Did he also use the word "paradigm?"

My bet is that he's just parrotting Kuhn, who has promoted the same bullshit. He uses Relativity's triumph over Newtonian physics as the gold standard of proof for his theory, totally ignoring the fact that it was newer, more accurate observations that drove the acceptance of Relativity rather than the death of old scientists.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-01-26 10:04am

Darth Wong wrote:My bet is that he's just parrotting Kuhn, who has promoted the same bullshit. He uses Relativity's triumph over Newtonian physics as the gold standard of proof for his theory, totally ignoring the fact that it was newer, more accurate observations that drove the acceptance of Relativity rather than the death of old scientists.

And then quantum mechanics came along and those old scientists had to learn a bunch of new things again. And they did.

The story of the theory of Relativity (and quantum mechanics a little later) was the standard example used against Kuhn's claims, simply because it's such a good example of science working properly.

If you want something that actually does work the way Kuhn says, I can only think of one incident: geologists' refusal to accept continental drift. It was a huge shift in ideas, and it was proposed by a German shortly after World War I, and it took a long time to catch on. But this only reveals a temporary failing in a single area of science, which has since been corrected. These days nobody disputes continental drift except young-earth creationists, and the field of geology has lots of exciting changing theories and lively discussions, with the scientific mechanism working smoothly.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-01-26 03:52pm

sketerpot wrote:If you want something that actually does work the way Kuhn says, I can only think of one incident: geologists' refusal to accept continental drift. It was a huge shift in ideas, and it was proposed by a German shortly after World War I, and it took a long time to catch on. But this only reveals a temporary failing in a single area of science, which has since been corrected. These days nobody disputes continental drift except young-earth creationists, and the field of geology has lots of exciting changing theories and lively discussions, with the scientific mechanism working smoothly.

That incident occured partially due to the idea being radically new, there not being that much evidence on hand, and the fact that the guy that proposed it is German. Scientists are human too, and like any other human they can let certain things get in the way of objectivity. However, the fact that continental drift was eventually accepted, means that in the end, the scientific method does work, even in the face of unwarranted bias.

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-01-26 08:47pm

Discombobulated wrote:
An Ancient said that if I went and asked anyone on the street or on SD.net, they would say evolution was responsible for the origin of life, while I said it was abiogenesis
It's clearly abiogenesis, and I don't know why people would expect SDNetters to think otherwise.

Once they've looked up the word, perhaps.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-01-28 02:10am

Shit —misclicked on evolution myself. Could somebody erase my vote?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Evolution responsible for the origin of life?

What is responsible for the origin of life?

Is Evolution responsible for the origin of life?

Re: Is Evolution responsible for the origin of life?

Re: Is Evolution responsible for the origin of life?