guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 How did the first thing that evolved, evolve the ability to evolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 How did the first thing that evolved, evolve the ability to evolve? It happened to survive long enough to make surviving offspring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 but how could it be living if it couldn't evolve into a living organism? At that point it is like atoms smashing around randomly into each other. I am not a creationist, but it seems like a stretch. So say it was just atoms smashing into each other... that ONE organism would have almost surely died without reproducing (even a-sexually). So that means that basic life forms are just poofing into existence all the time from atoms colliding. So how many trillion random instances of life poofing into existence before one lived long enough to reproduce?Separately, reproduction is an evolved trait. The point is... why isnt the universe sterile of life? If it was at some point... how/why didn't it remain so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuojat Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Short answer: We dont know exactly how abiogenesis happened. Read up on it if you want best answers on what we DO know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Evolution describes how species change over time through the traits more suitable to survival propagating over traits not as suitable for survival. It is the environment reflecting back on the characteristics of species living in that environment. There is no trait called evolution as such, just like there is no trait that initiated the beginning of solar system or galaxy formation. It is just an inevitable consequence given the laws of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 Evolution describes how species change over time through the traits more suitable to survival propagating over traits not as suitable for survival. It is the environment reflecting back on the characteristics of species living in that environment. There is no trait called evolution as such, just like there is no trait that initiated the beginning of solar system or galaxy formation. It is just an inevitable consequence given the laws of nature. I was referring to inter-generational modification of genetic structure. Mutation is what is strange to me. So say there is the first one cell organism that ever figured out how to divide its self into two organisms... why would genetic code change? The cell has reproduced. Why does it not just continue to reproduce with the original genes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I was referring to inter-generational modification of genetic structure. Mutation is what is strange to me. So say there is the first one cell organism that ever figured out how to divide its self into two organisms... why would genetic code change? The cell has reproduced. Why does it not just continue to reproduce with the original genes? It is a good question, but the answer is they just aren't able to perfectly replicate themselves. Cells live in reality with all sorts environmental interactions that damage them or intervene during the replication, or dividing process. Everything in reality has a certain amount of variation, which is fundamental to nature, so cells being able to forever and always exactly replicate themselves would be more strange then having variations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 It is a good question, but the answer is they just aren't able to perfectly replicate themselves. Cells live in reality with all sorts environmental interactions that damage them or intervene during the replication, or dividing process. Everything in reality has a certain amount of variation, which is fundamental to nature, so cells being able to forever and always exactly replicate themselves would be more strange then having variations. I like that. That seems reasonable and I can accept that answer. What have you to say about the origins of life and how/why it came about? On a separate note... are you from Utah? Or do you just like the sound of the word Wasatch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I like that. That seems reasonable and I can accept that answer. What have you to say about the origins of life and how/why it came about? On a separate note... are you from Utah? Or do you just like the sound of the word Wasatch... The origins of life is not a very well understood phenomena and I definitely don't have a great handle on the current hypothesis on the subject. And yes, I am from Utah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 The origins of life is not a very well understood phenomena and I definitely don't have a great handle on the current hypothesis on the subject. And yes, I am from Utah. Well I guess I won't fault you for not knowing Good deal man! I am from southern Utah. My parents live up on the other side of Utah lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'd read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to get a good understanding. Below I'll provide a basic summary of how it probably happened. As far as life started, a molecule was formed which replicated itself using its surroundings. Though that may sound very unusual, molecules that do this are pretty common, like crystals, but they are a long away from being considered alive. The molecule had the right conditions to replicate to extreme numbers. One theory has this molecule covering large parts of the ocean. Every once in a while an error would occur in replication. If this slightly different molecule could replicate and could do so at a higher rate than the previous, it would increase in frequency. Overtime, the amount of replicating molecules increased as more successful variations improved their ability to replicate. Replicating molecules that did not succeed in replicating due to others ceased to be. Though all of the replicating molecules likely started from the same point, the more adaptations that are made the more they diverge from the original replicator. If you think through it, you can imagine how competition emerges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'd read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to get a good understanding. Below I'll provide a basic summary of how it probably happened. As far as life started, a molecule was formed which replicated itself using its surroundings. Though that may sound very unusual, molecules that do this are pretty common, like crystals, but they are a long away from being considered alive. The molecule had the right conditions to replicate to extreme numbers. One theory has this molecule covering large parts of the ocean. Every once in a while an error would occur in replication. If this slightly different molecule could replicate and could do so at a high rate than the previous, it would increase in frequency. Overtime, the amount of replicating molecules increased as more successful variations improved their ability to replicate. Replicating molecules that did not succeed in replicating due to others ceased to be. Though all of the replicating molecules likely started from the same point, the more adaptations that are made the more they diverge from the original replicator. If you think through it, you can imagine how competition emerges. That is a fantastic answer! Wow. Good stuff. I will read it for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 How did the first thing that evolved, evolve the ability to evolve? It didn't. The ability to evolve is not an evolved trait, logically, it can't be. It's like saying 'I couldn't learn until I learn't how to learn', obviously if you learn't how to learn you always had the ability to learn, and did not learn it. 3 things are necessary for something to evolve. 1. The ability to self replicate. 2. That the ability to self replicate is not a perfect process, that is; sometimes the replica is not an exact copy of the original. 3. The non-exact copy produced also posesses traits 1 and 2 The first thing to evolve was merely the first thing that had those 3 traits. None of those traits could have been evolved traits, since without them, evolution is impossible. As for how something came to have those 3 traits, I can only speculate, but I am certain that it did not evolve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Is it possible that we're asking the wrong question? That evolution is a continuous process without a beginning? Galaxies take on a certain form because that form is stable, and it's possible that they reproduce. The same could be true of stars and planets, atoms and molecules. I realize that may sound far-fetched, just something I have pondered from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Is it possible that we're asking the wrong question? That evolution is a continuous process without a beginning? Galaxies take on a certain form because that form is stable, and it's possible that they reproduce. The same could be true of stars and planets, atoms and molecules. I realize that may sound far-fetched, just something I have pondered from time to time. That wouldn't be a good comparison of since the unit is completely different. When we talk about reproduction, we are talking about the replication of something specific. The the case of life on earth, it is the gene. A cloud splitting into two is not reproduction as no information or physical state is copied, rather each new cloud retains its original properties. Now if the clouds split and both retained a specific shape, depending on the environment, that could lead to some natural selection as the shape that is best at creating new clouds would increase in frequency. In the case of galaxies, there is no parallel. With that said, the idea that natural selection might be applicable to the multiverse does have some weight, though there is obviously no experimental test that can yet be conceived to test it. I like the idea, but I don't think we can really get behind any idea which has no grounding. Just keep in mind that even if this was proven true, it still isn't appropriate to say that evolution was occurring before life on earth since the meaning of "evolution" would be so different. Natural selection would be a better term as it describes a process. http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_%28fecund_universes%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
things make sense Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Laws of thermodynamics comes to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Is it possible that genetic material is exchanged beyond the physical limits of a planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Is it possible that genetic material is exchanged beyond the physical limits of a planet? Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all, especially when considering life on earth. You'd either need: 1. An intelligent life form sending out self-replicating molecules across the universe. 2. A planet with life being hit by an giant asteroid, with some of the basic replicating molecules remaining intact until they can replicate in another planet/comet. 3. For self-replicating molecules to form on comets or asteroids. I refer to it as "self-replicating molecules" because it would be highly unlikely that any specialized organism could transfer to another environment and remain intact. It is would be kind of like transferring koalas from the trees, into a volcano. Also to add, I'm assuming that the molecules have some capacity for natural selection. Table salt and other crystals are self-replicating, but they don't really have the capacity to evolve. Dust on the other hand is a crystal which replicates with high accuracy, but can make mistakes, which could allow for some sort of natural selection. Number 3 could have some basis as the building blocks for life can sometimes be found on comets and asteroids, but whether there is self-replicating molecules is unlikely. If there are, it is likely from a planet exploding as in point 2. The big issue with the idea in general is time and space. Space is unimaginably large. To transport a self-replicating molecule would require to the ability to withstand thousands upon millions of years of cosmic rays bombarding it. It's not that it is impossible, just less likely the further you go out. With that said, another large factor is to consider the size of the observable universe. It is very likely there is a lot of life out there, and it is very likely that some life has migrating via the points above or through other means. With an observable size of 13 billion light years, we can assume that if anything can happen, that it has happened once at least somewhere, even if it is almost impossible to actually confirm due to the sheer size of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragomira Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Is it possible that genetic material is exchanged beyond the physical limits of a planet? I would say this is very unlikely to occur with the basic molecules that make up genetic material, like DNA or RNA. This is what I learned a few years ago during my study (Biomedical Sciences): - RNA has self-replicating ability and can also function as basic genetic material, but is unstable and limited in its length. DNA is much more stable, since it can form double-helix structures, but has no self-replicating ability as far as I know. - At low temperatures (- 80 degrees Celsius), these molecules can be stored reliably, especially DNA. - At high temperatures (+ 70 degrees Celsius), the DNA strands are seperated from each other, but can return to their double-helix structure when cooled down. With these properties in mind and assuming that RNA and/or DNA are the requirements for replicating organic life, I would say it is unlikely that genetic material could leave the boundries of this planet in its basic form (single molecules). RNA would likely be too unstable and DNA cannot (as far as I know) replicate without some sort of protein. However, packaged in cells of some description (like bacteria or multi-cellular organisms), it might be possible. I remember hearing about some bacteria species that have the capability to almost completely shut down cellular processes and go into 'hibernation', making them highly resistant to any outside influences. I would say the anthrax bacterium is infamous for its spore-forming ability that allow it to remain viable for a long time under harsh conditions. Just last week a researcher at the hospital that I work at (doing my internship at) told about a strain of tuberculosis that could shut down all of its molecular processes when exposed to stress factors (like antibiotics), making it highly resistant to antibiotics and allowing the tuberculosis to remain inside the patient/host until 'it saw fit to awaken', generally when the immune system was compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts