Defining life in a world without Darwin

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 12, 2011

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At one time, life was simple, and defining it was easy. NASA defined life as: “a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.” [1] In that case, what are they to make of recent findings that life’s simplest cells evolve mainly by swapping genes, and not through Darwinian competition? [2] Can they forbid teaching that in publicly funded schools – Texas Darwin lobby-style? But then …

Don Johnson, author of Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability offers, on the definition of life:

Although there is no universally accepted definition of life [3], it often includes characteristics like metabolism, growth, adaptation, and reproduction. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter is perhaps the most concise definition of life. [4]

Concise yes, and it offers no theory of origin. Thoughts?

[1]The wording is attributed to OOL researcher Gerald Joyce, in Foreword, Origins of Life: The Central Concepts, D.W. Deamer and G R Fleischaker, editors (Boston: Jones & Bartlett; 1994). pp. xi–xii. This article from the NASA Astrobiology Institute: Leslie Mullen, “Unfamiliar Life: Why should the particular polymer combinations of Earth reign supreme?” (April 17, 2002) The definition seems to have been accepted.

[2] “Microbes evolve predominantly by acquiring genes from other microbes, new research suggests, challenging previous theories that gene duplication is the primary driver of protein evolution in prokaryotes”, from Megan Scudellari Gene swap key to evolution: Horizontal gene transfer accounts for the majority of prokaryotic protein evolution, The Scientist ( 27th January 2011)

[3] Claus Emmeche, “DefiningLife, Explaining Emergence,” 1997.

[4] Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, 2005. This definition includes as living (or at least as once living) organisms those that are sterile (e.g. mules and worker ants) and those not having cells (e.g. viruses). While life uses the laws of chemistry and physics, those laws cannot define or explain life any more than the rule of grammar that were used during the preparation of this book define its content. (P. 18)

Comments

Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics. Despite observation. He just did not believe it, hence his famous, "God does not play dice." Others have felt the same. Lee Smolin: "I am on of those who never found a way to believe in quantum mechanics, but I am one of the insincere ones." And the list goes on.junkdnaforlife_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

"He says scientists have no beliefs." Perhaps he means "there is no truth in them." Isn't it odd that he says "BINGO!" about my post @ 32 -- while apparently deploying the tendentious "definition" of 'belief' used by no one but atheistic polemicists -- and simultaneously ignores my post @ 34?Ilion_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

I'm sure Doveton will agree they are in fact beliefs, but that they are not scientific, therefore they are not really beliefs, for they don't agree with the evidence of one’s senses.Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

re 44 Mung this is what I want to know from Doveton. If the statements he/she has made about what science is, is not,what beliefs are, what beliefs are not, etc, etc, are not beliefs then what are they. Doveton? Vividvividbleau_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

He says scientists have no beliefs. Doveton says:
Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief
Elizabeth says:
Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.
Doveton says:
it [science] is about utility – what explanations are useful for predicting further aspects of our world’s phenomena.
Which of course is itself a belief. And the belief that an explanation may be useful for predicting further aspects of our world's phenomena is (obviously) a belief.Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

"mm…well, if that’s the case, then Ilion would be wrong. I’ll let you and Mung discuss that point with Ilion. When you all come to an agreement on the subject, we can continue. " “Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” it’s because science isn’t about truth." If its not a belief then what do you say it is? Vivdvividbleau_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau,
“What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement – it’s the very foundation of science.” What you call the very foundation of science is a belief. I think thats what the writer is getting at. Vivid
Hmm...well, if that's the case, then Ilion would be wrong. I'll let you and Mung discuss that point with Ilion. When you all come to an agreement on the subject, we can continue. :)Doveton_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Mung,
See, the problem is that you are now using “belief” to mean “agree with the evidence of one’s senses” as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant “to accept without evidence.”
What a bizarre definition of what it means to believe something, to form beliefs, and to have beliefs.
I agree. So why are you being inconsistent in your use of the term?
And no, I’m not equivocating. I’ve been consistent in my usage. You, otoh, I don’t know what you’ve been.
I disagree. At the top of these comments where you ask, "why should I believe your unfalsified theory", the term "believe" there has a completely different meaning than the term "belief" as used in your questioning whether basketball players have to believe they've been fouled or have hit a basket.
Want to present your original statement again for us, this time stated the way you really meant it?
I wrote my statement exactly the way I meant to write it in 15 above. There is no reason I can see to to rephrase it.
Why do scientists even do science if they have no beliefs?
Well, first and foremost, I don't know any scientists who engage in an science because of some belief. The scientists and researchers I know engage in science because it's a useful tool for developing explanations about the world around them. But in reference to your question, where did anyone state that scientists have no beliefs? I looked through comments and didn't see such a statement. In fact, here's Lizzie's statement to the contrary from 22 above in case you missed it:
Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief. If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it. I simply consider that my hypothesis is “supported”. All scientific propositions are provisional, and they are all potentially falsifiable – or at least potentially rendered less tenable – by the next batch of data.
Doveton_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

"What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement – it’s the very foundation of science." What you call the very foundation of science is a belief. I think thats what the writer is getting at. Vividvividbleau_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Oh, so that’s what scientists believe?
What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement - it's the very foundation of science.Doveton_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Doveton:
See, the problem is that you are now using “belief” to mean “agree with the evidence of one’s senses” as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant “to accept without evidence.”
What a bizarre definition of what it means to believe something, to form beliefs, and to have beliefs. And no, I'm not equivocating. I've been consistent in my usage. You, otoh, I don't know what you've been. Want to present your original statement again for us, this time stated the way you really meant it? Why do scientists even do science if they have no beliefs?Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

BINGO! Exceptionally well put!
Oh, so that's what scientists believe?Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Ilion,
If “Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” it’s because science isn’t about truth.
BINGO! Exceptionally well put!Doveton_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Doveton:
And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn’t mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief.
No. There’s no need to believe you’ve been fouled. There’s no need to believe you’ve scored a basket. There’s no need to believe you won or lost the game. There’s no need to believe those guys in the funny shirts are referees or that they have the power to eject you from the game. There’s no reason to believe basketball is a team sport. There’s no reason to believe those other 5 guys are not on your team. No, there’s no reason to believe anything at all in order to play basketball.
OOHHH...you're trying to equivocate! Well, why didn't say so? See, the problem is that you are now using "belief" to mean "agree with the evidence of one's senses" as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant "to accept without evidence." Hey...if that's what you want to run with, have at it!
In terms of the way Dr. Liddle and I were using the term, however, the fact is, basketball players don't engage in belief with regard to fouling, hitting baskets, dribbling, or anything else game related; they either accept the perception of their own senses and those of others around them or they don't. And guess what? Many times they don't accept the calls against them! Surprise! But that's why we have instant replay and all that other jazz now to make sure we get calls correct in accordance with the evidence, thus eliminating belief from games altogether. But thank you for proving my point for me, Mung - if this is what you mean by science being about "belief" (e.g., "agreement based upon evidence") then fine. I'll go ahead and agree with you since that was my point all along! Thanks!
And you don’t have to believe anything at all in order to do science.
Go ahead. Say some more idiotic stuff.
No no...no need for me to say anything idiotic at this point, what with you doing such a fine job on my behalf!
Doveton_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Isn't it amusing that almost all scientistes (think 'artiste' a la Miss Piggy) will proclaim, night and day, that "science isn’t about belief and requires no belief" ... and then they spend inordinate amounts of time faulting the intellect and/or morals of persons who simply do not believe the stupid things they insist are "scientific truths" (which are not to be confused with actual truths). What? Are these people stupid -- are they incapable of understanding their own claims? -- or are they just intellectually dishonest?Ilion_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Mung: "And sure, tack on speciation. The very thing Darwinism is supposed to explain." Even speciation is a red herring. What *needs* to be explained is not speciation, but the origin of biological novelty.Ilion_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

If "Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief" it's because science isn't about truth.Ilion_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

What isn’t? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn’t. How could they?
Bifurcation. Nested hierarchies. And sure, tack on speciation. The very thing Darwinism is supposed to explain. So if the very first self-replicator did so by cloning, how did we ever get any new species of self-replicators? Oh, we didn't? So at the must basic level of life Darwinism is false?Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Doveton:
And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn’t mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief.
No. There's no need to believe you've been fouled. There's no need to believe you've scored a basket. There's no need to believe you won or lost the game. There's no need to believe those guys in the funny shirts are referees or that they have the power to eject you from the game. There's no reason to believe basketball is a team sport. There's no reason to believe those other 5 guys are not on your team. No, there's no reason to believe anything at all in order to play basketball. And you don't have to believe anything at all in order to do science. Go ahead. Say some more idiotic stuff.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle,
Oh, so then that’s NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all.
What isn’t? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn’t. How could they?
Just a suggestion, but perhaps it would help Mung if you noted that "Darwinian" theory made several predictions, noted a number of effects, and, as a theory, covered a number of related concepts. As such, while speciation is an effect (not a prediction) explained by evolutionary theory, it is not an effect of all of the concepts explained under evolutionary theory.
Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Oh, so then that’s NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all.
What isn't? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn't. How could they?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Doveton: Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief Elizabeth Liddle: Doveton is of course correct. How would you know? Is that your belief, speaking as a scientist?
Well, I can't speak for Dr. Liddle, but I certainly arrived at the conclusion in a straight forward manner without belief: there's no evidence, historical or otherwise of science requiring belief. Ergo, there is none. Of course, that's actually a tautology, but then that's the point.
Elizabeth Liddle: Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.</blockquote You two make a great pair.
That's very kind of you Mung, but you aren't really addressing the differentiation.
Elizabeth Liddle: If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it. Nor, I suppose, would you say that you “believe” it is significant.
No need to believe such; if it garners utilitarian interest and/or changes the understanding of given phenomenon, then by definition it is significant.
Scientists have beliefs, just like everyone else. Scientists don’t stop having beliefs just because they became scientists. In fact, I’d like to see someone do science without having any beliefs. The very idea is ludicrous.
And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn't mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief. It seems you think that the beliefs held by participants and workers are somehow conferred onto the institution under which they are operating, but that only works if all workers and participants come to the institution due to a common belief. Do you know of such a belief held by all scientists? But more to the point, people having beliefs (plural) in general is quite different from an institution being about specific belief (singular) and requiring specific belief (singular). You are conflating scientists with science, but the two are quite different entities. Science is the broad body of knowledge garnered via a specific methodology and the methodology itself. Scientists are the practitioners of the methodology. To say that science is about the belief of the scientists and/or requires the belief of all scientists is to completely ignore that there are vast differences between the beliefs held by the many and varied scientists, not just today but throughout history. So no, this does not rebut my previous statement - the institution of science by definition is not about belief and does not require belief. If it was about belief or required belief, there could not be such varied beliefs among all the scientists who exist and have existed - they would all share the single belief required to conduct science.Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Doveton:
Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief
Elizabeth Liddle:
Doveton is of course correct.
How would you know? Is that your belief, speaking as a scientist? Elizabeth Liddle:
Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.</blockquote You two make a great pair. Elizabeth Liddle:
If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it.
Nor, I suppose, would you say that you "believe" it is significant. Scientists have beliefs, just like everyone else. Scientists don't stop having beliefs just because they became scientists. In fact, I'd like to see someone do science without having any beliefs. The very idea is ludicrous.
Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

I’m not sure what you are saying. I’m not saying that single-celled critters can’t evolve. It’s just that you won’t get speciation in the sense in which it is normally defined (bifurcation of populations into non-interbreeding sub-populations) – you’ll get plenty of adaptation, though, and lots of variation.
Oh, so then that's NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

You may well have done. In which case, we agree. cool :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
But yes, it covers it – you just have to be careful not to extrapolate carelessly from one to the other.
And didn't I make this very point to you just the other day, lol?Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Doveton is of course correct. Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief. If I have a significant finding, I do not "believe" it. I simply consider that my hypothesis is "supported". All scientific propositions are provisional, and they are all potentially falsifiable - or at least potentially rendered less tenable - by the next batch of data. Indeed, your first job, when you get data that support a hypothesis, is to try figure out what alternative hypothesis might also explain those data.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Mung: Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell. Elizabeth: I argued that natural selection takes place at the level of the organism – the phenotype. Well, let’s go back and have a look at just what was said. Mung: I try more and more to ignore any aspect of evolutionary theory which is above the level of the cell, what takes place in the cell and during the cell cycle. Cellular structures and processes. Elizabeth: In that case you cannot hope to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection operates at the level of the organism not at the level of the cell. And natural selection is fairly fundamental to evolutionary theory! Oh my. There I was talking about the cell, and cell level processes, and structures within the cell, and you told me I could not hope then to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection does not operate at the level of the cell. Except when it does. Right?
yes, obviously, when the cell IS the organism (i.e. when the organism is unicellular) then the level of the organism IS the level of the cell. OK?
So surely evolutionary theory covers all those unicellular organisms that live and have ever lived, right?
Well, evolution in asexually producing organisms has different characteristics - no speciation, for instance. But yes, it covers it - you just have to be careful not to extrapolate carelessly from one to the other.
It tells us how they evolved. How multi-cellularity evolved. How sexual reproduction evolved. All that good stuff.
Well, some of those remain pretty speculative. But yes, if it's any good as a theory it ought at least to generate hypotheses for these transitions. And has done.
There’s LOTS of things for evolutionary theory to explain just when it comes to single cells.
Indeed there is. But it doesn't alter the fact that natural selection (not "evolution") operates at the unit-of-reproduction, which, in the case of a single celled critter is, obviously, the cell, but which, in a multicellular organism is the organism. It can also operate at the level of the population, of course, as this is also a self-reproducing unit. And at the level of the colony, which may be the best way of thinking about very early multi-cellular organisms.
So why get sidetracked on common descent and all those other issues if we can’t even get life to evolve to that point?
I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm not saying that single-celled critters can't evolve. It's just that you won't get speciation in the sense in which it is normally defined (bifurcation of populations into non-interbreeding sub-populations) - you'll get plenty of adaptation, though, and lots of variation.
We need to evolve cell membranes.
Yes. Some people think they might have come first. In any case, until you have a self-reproducing cell, however simple, you don't have anything anyone would probably want to call life. Lipid vesicles containing self-replicating polymers is probably where we've got to start.
We need to evolve cell division. (600+ genes for mitosis alone!)
In modern cells, yes. But you can't talk about "evolving" cell division, really - evolution presupposes self-replication. You are down to the abiogenesis wire here.
We need to evolve introns. We need to evolve organelles. Intra-cellular transport. Cell to cell signalling. New cell types. A flagellum might come in handy. And the list goes on.
Sure. It's a very interesting topic, but obviously its one where data is pretty scarce. We may never have definitive answers, merely plausible hypotheses that make some verifiable predictions.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Doveton, do you know what the phrase patently false means?
Yes, I am well aware of what patently false means. However, declaring that something is patently false does not make the claim automatically true. As I'm unaware of any evidence that even remotely implies that science is about belief and requires belief, nevermind any evidence that directly proves such, and as you've failed to provide any such evidence yourself, I can only conclude that you are mistaken in your claim.Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Mung: Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell. Elizabeth: I argued that natural selection takes place at the level of the organism – the phenotype. Well, let's go back and have a look at just what was said. Mung: I try more and more to ignore any aspect of evolutionary theory which is above the level of the cell, what takes place in the cell and during the cell cycle. Cellular structures and processes. Elizabeth: In that case you cannot hope to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection operates at the level of the organism not at the level of the cell. And natural selection is fairly fundamental to evolutionary theory! Oh my. There I was talking about the cell, and cell level processes, and structures within the cell, and you told me I could not hope then to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection does not operate at the level of the cell. Except when it does. Right? So surely evolutionary theory covers all those unicellular organisms that live and have ever lived, right? It tells us how they evolved. How multi-cellularity evolved. How sexual reproduction evolved. All that good stuff. There's LOTS of things for evolutionary theory to explain just when it comes to single cells. So why get sidetracked on common descent and all those other issues if we can't even get life to evolve to that point? We need to evolve cell membranes. We need to evolve cell division. (600+ genes for mitosis alone!) We need to evolve introns. We need to evolve organelles. Intra-cellular transport. Cell to cell signalling. New cell types. A flagellum might come in handy. And the list goes on.Mung_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply