Re: Guest Post -The evolution of a sentence about evolution

1

I'm guessing abiogenesis- life started by chemical processes creating bio molecules which became self replicating and evolving. Not actually that controversial as several key parts have been demonstrated in the lab.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-28-15 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
2

Judging by the Institute for Creation Research's piece "The Myth of Chemical Evolution" (not linking), the people who drafted this sentence probably do take "chemical evolution" to mean abiogenesis. I've been out of the field for long enough that I don't know whether that's what sensible people also mean by it, if indeed they mean anything by it.

A hypothesis is a proposition, no? Trivially related to a question about the truth value of that proposition, but not itself a question.


Posted by: Gabardine Bathyscaphe | Link to this comment | 01-28-15 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
3

1 - We've got proof of principle for parts, but not a demonstration of what actually happened. I'd say the one sensible thing about the trainwreck sentence in the OP is that the awkward theory/hypothesis split suggests a recognition that what we know about biological evolution is on much more solid ground than what we think we know about the origins of life.


Posted by: Gabardine Bathyscaphe | Link to this comment | 01-28-15 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
4

we know about biological evolution is on much more solid ground than what we think we know about the origins of life.

I agree with this. Nice paper about thermodynamics of self-reproducing molecules.

I don't agree that the sentence is thoughtful-- it's likely the result of a chain of edits like the one outline in the LL post, without careful attention to epistomology or the state of research into possible RNA-based early life.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 01-28-15 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
5

Anti-darwinists consider chemical evolution to be the weakest part of the case for evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Why-are-So-Many-Chemists-Creationists-.html


Posted by: lemmycaution | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:03 AM
horizontal rule
6

It's certainly not as much fun as the part with the dinosaurs and all.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:06 AM
horizontal rule
7

5. Well, there's an epistemological problem with talking about the past-- inference from current observations is all that's available. The origin of life was a long time ago, and not much is certain.

But early RNA-based life looks more than plausible both thermodynamically and biochemically. Thomas Cech is the name I start with to read about RNA-based origin of life, which I don't keep current with.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
8

Anti-darwinists consider chemical evolution to be the weakest part of the case for evolution

It's also the most threatening to them as it addresses the creation of "life from non-life", rather than the diversfication of forms of pre-existing life.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
9

Full-on scientific Frankensteinism would be more fun than dinosaurs.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
10

Apparently a new popular book on dinosaurs is coming out in November (scroll down or search the page).


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
11

Correction: Full-on scientific Frankensteinism would be more fun than fossils of dinosaurs.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
12

8: I had a close run-in with one of the more sophisticated creationist types. They have a whole system by which species can evolve within their "kind" but the kinds are created by god. This is how they get around the Noah's Ark problem of fitting everything in. It's cool to see the creativity with which they maneuver around the problems of literalism.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
13

They have a whole system by which species can evolve within their "kind" but the kinds are created by god

It's called baraminology.

It's cool to see the creativity with which they maneuver around the problems of literalism.

More funny than cool. After all, they cannot fathom how fish could evolve into tetrapods over hundreds of millions of years, but have no problem with extraordinary, far-faster-than-observed-today speciation within kinds since the Flood.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 01-29-15 9:23 AM
horizontal rule