Talk:Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis

From EvoWiki

"Most creationists accept "microevolution". This claim doesn't explain why macroevolution is baseless without abiogenesis, yet microevolution isn't." I believe the difference is, that microevolution doesn't increase the information in a genome, where macro-evolution does require this. PhoteK

"Information" is a term used in information theory, you can not simply transfer this term to micro-biology, or at least you have to redefine it in a proper way. In particular you have to get rid of the teleological implications which are associated with this term in information theory. Otherwise the use of this term will nearly inescapably lead to logical accidents. Epo 21:01, 28 Jun 2005 (BST)

Also, "microevolution doesn't increase the information in a genome, where macro-evolution does require this" is nonsense. It's practically like saying "ah, this little change, you can hardly call it change, so the information that is gained can hardly be called information". "Zero" and "very little" are different concepts. --tk (t) 08:39, 29 Jun 2005 (BST)

A man being born with a 6th finger(or if I went outside and got a tan) and a man being born with wings are two different things. The information for the finger was there, the information for the wing isn't, at least from what I know. PhoteK 08:18, 13 Aug 2005 (BST)

What about a man born with a tail? Does that show new information or is it just expressing old information which was already present?--Churl Beck 17:40, 13 Aug 2005 (BST)

In response to PoteK: The information for making a finger wouldn't be new, but the information required to place a sixth one in that spot would be new. It's like tk was saying: just because the change seems small (as compared to wings) doesn't mean that there really wasn't a change at all. If there were no change in info, there would still be only 5 fingers. --James 10:24, 14 Aug 2005 (BST)

Not withstanding what has been said, I am concerned that there may be some dependency between evolution and abiogenesis. On some views, the entire journey from inanimate to animate is achievable by natural selection, abiogenisis just being a particularly big and improbable step, but a step like any other all the same. And isn't natural selection active (with a bit of conceptual shoe-horning) upon inanimate systems? Pebbles on the beach are selected for roundness - it's not a healthy place to be if you are a rock with corners. Evolution may not be baseless without a theory of abiogenesis, but it needs that jewel in its crown.--Nic 16:59, 21 Oct 2005 (BST)

Evolutionary concepts (ie - selective pressure, heritable variation) may be used as models for developing a theory of abiogenesis. That does not mean that evolution addresses or requires abiogenesis. Also, your use of pebbles on the beach being "selected" for roundness isn't the same model that evolution uses for selection. Non-round stones are made round by geological processes on the beach. There's nothing inherited or reproductive involved in that process.

As for the initial contention: A question back at you - would you consider the human/chimp differences macro-evolution? If so, then there's nothing related to abiogenesis there. All human/chimp genome differences are standard insertions/deletions/duplications/base changes such as have been observed occurring in experimental organisms. Some of the insertions and duplications may be viewed as the creation of new information, but the mechanisms involved in their generation are well understood, and do not involve anything like abiogenesis. --Dr._Jay 13:59, 21 Oct 2005 (EST)

I would very much consider the human/chimp differences macro-evolution. New information is incorporated as a result of that evolution. I'm not concerned here with creationists who doubt that ongoing change is sufficiently explained by natural processes. I am unhappy about allowing any refuge at all for divine intervention, even as just a single incident in the distant past. If the consensus here is "who cares, it's no threat to evolution as a theory", then fine, because that is logically correct. The pebbles example was chosen because it can be viewed as either cause and effect or selection - both patterns fit non-exclusively, indeed a good deal of what happens on beaches is termed 'sorting', surely a basic kind of selection.

I mentioned the pebbles example because I thought the evolutionists ought to want to tell the story starting from before the appearance of the first replicators. Hopefully there is a story to be told that is wildly improbable, but not wildly, wildly improbable. --Nic 19:25, 21 Oct 2005 (BST)

The 7th response should be cleared from the list. What it says is correct but given that it is considered by it's author to be a response to the original claim it is realy fallacious. Actually the Miller-Urey experiment leaves more unanswered questions behind than those it answers. For example this experiment doesn't answer why most of all creatures on Earth can only produce and utilise proteins of L chirality. And lets not forget that this experiment could only make up a few of the 24 amino acids of great importance in living organisms. There are theories now that reduces more problems concerning abiogenesis than the primordial soup theory. Furthermore not all of these theories can be replicated in laboratory conditions.

Yes, it was inaccurate as it claimed abiogenesis had been replicated, whereas only some key parts of it have been. Certainly the Miller-Urey experiment made abiogenesis seem more likely, but by no means answered all questions. I've adjusted it to be more accurate.--Doddy 00:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad analogy

"This is analogous to the claim that the theory of celestial mechanics is baseless without a theory of how the Solar System came into existence. Real theories start by trying to explain what we observe directly and new theories then work their way backwards to try to explain phenomena that are more fundamental, but further removed from direct observation."

Bad analogy. Celestian mechanics is the analog to physiology, ethology, behaviors that are observed *directly*. Evolution would explain how the many celestial body in the Solar System differentiated from the original celestial body (the Sun). Abiogenesis would be related to how dust formed the original celestial body. Dirani

I don't think so. The analogous part is "A is a process that happened before B, and people claim that explaining B is baseless without a theory of A." Perfect analogy. --tk 08:44, 10 July 2008 (BST)