Evolution and Origins of Life

So how many times have you heard an anti-theist talk about how stupid the theists are when they talk about both evolution and the origins of life?  The argument is generally stated as “evolution doesn’t speak to the question of the origins of life”.

While this may be true, the theists where never talking about it in that way.  Contrary to the popular anti-theistic belief it is quite possible to talk about a scientific subject and just not restrict oneself to scientific views.  It may not be the stuff of a scientific paper, but then again neither is most of the conversations in this world.

Many anti-theists try to claim that the only thing that is real is what science defines as real.  However, ever since the empiricist movement from several hundred years ago, it has been quite clear that what is real is not defined by science.  Some choose to believe what science defines as real actually is the same as reality, but that is only a belief.

What science does do is define what is acceptable in a scientific conversation.  It sets guidelines of what can be considered evidence and limits thinking to the verifiable conditions that it was founded on.

But thinking that evolution can only be thought of in a scientific context, is a childish bigoted view that presupposes that only science is worthy of conversation.  This is the general starting point for what is known as scientism.  The religion of believing science is the only valid way to describe the universe.

While many of the theists can’t describe why they want to talk about evolution and origins at the same time doesn’t mean they are wrong to do so.  In fact I see it as actually a very good sign of the theists having a strong intuitive understanding of some of the flaws in evolution.

When someone says that they don’t accept evolution, there are at least two possible meanings of what they are saying.  On one hand they could be saying they reject everything stated in the theory.  But on the other hand they could simply be saying that they don’t accept ALL of evolution.  The insane anti-theists only ever hear the first one and don’t bother to ask before they start into their normal insult and logical fallacy side show acts.

So lets say we have a theist or an atheist (which of course if not an anti-theist), and they don’t accept evolution.  They would agree that the parts that can be demonstrated in solid scientific experiments are acceptable and they don’t have a problem with those parts.

This most likely means they don’t have a problem with modern generics.  If you can do a test in a lab over and over again, varying the conditions, and observing the outcomes, that’s pretty solid evidence and accepting what is found is not all that hard.

But consider archeology.  All you can do is dig up stuff and attempt to classify it into your favorite categories.  The older and older the things you dig up are, the less likely there is that you could get any genetic material for comparison.  And as the geologists are so fond of saying, only some environments are conducive to the creation of fossils.

So archeology gives us by definition a VERY incomplete view of what was alive at some point in time. The further back in time we go the less information we can actually glean from what we find. Not only are a small number of the members of a species fossilized, a potentially large number of species could have existed in an environment that didn’t produce fossils.

Also notice that there is no real experimentation.  Nobody has buried something and dug it up millions of years later to see how it was changed.  Simply looking at the results without knowing the exact initial conditions, is not an experiment.  It’s just digging up pretty artifacts and organizing them in your display box.

So how does this relate to evolution and the origins of life?

One of the core concepts of evolution is the tree of life otherwise know as the common ancestor theory.  This theory in its most extreme form postulates that all life on earth is related genetically and the process of natural selection accounts for all the diversity of life.

Here is where the origin question enters the picture.  Was there a single unique instance where life began (however it happened) or where there many instances where matter somehow managed to get organized in such a way to make the jump from not life to life?

Of course the theists say that a god did it once a long time ago. The anti-theists, just the same, say it also happened one time a long time ago.  But consider the possibility that life actually got started many times.  If this was the case, not all life is related in a parent/child relationship.  Different life forms could have formed totally independently of each other and survived until today meaning there are life forms that don’t have a common ancestor between them.

Simply talking the scientific side, going back in time one would expect to life to get simpler and simpler.  The earliest forms of life would most likely be very simple single cell organisms. As you get closer and closer to this postulated first life form, we would also expect that the genetic sequences used for reproduction would also be simpler and simpler.

No matter how you slice it, simpler and simpler genetic sequences mean fewer and less complicated proteins could have formed.  This would mean the basic chemistry of life would have to get simpler the further you went back in time.  It is easy to infer that as the chemistry gets simpler, the likelihood of it happening goes up.

So we are on a trajectory of life becoming simpler and the chances of those chemical reactions randomly happening increasing as we go.  At some point, we would have to reach a point where the chemical reactions are so commonplace that they happen in many places at many times.

For the single occurrence model to be correct, life would need to have started late in this sequence of events.  The multiple occurrence models favor an earlier start to life.  And this brings us to the real question.  What is your definition of life?

There is no generally accepted definition of the term.  It’s kind of like the definition for pornography.  “I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it”.

With so many possible definitions, all the factions are free to choose whatever definition they want.  Simply put, this means everyone is right or everyone is wrong.  Since some of the positions are diametrically opposed, it’s not actually possible for everybody to be right so the only sane answer is that everybody is wrong including the scientismistic (is that a word) fans of evolution.

This really goes to the question of how you would tell the difference between to the two positions.  The ignostic position is that like the question of the existence of a god, the question of the validity of the common ancestor theory is meaningless until you define precisely what you mean with the term “life”.

So here are a few questions that need to be answered first:

1.      What is the minimal genetic sequence(s) that qualifies as a life form?

2.      Starting with that, what are the sequences of mutations that lead to all modern life forms?

3.      What additional supporting chemistry needs to be in place within this entity to qualify as an original life form?

4.      What are the minimal environmental conditions needed around the life form for it to survive?

5.      What does this original life form consume and secrete?

Until there are accepted definitions for at least some of these questions, arguing over the question of single or multiple occurrences of life starting is just another example of arguing the number of angels that can dance of the head of a pin.

It also means that theistic questions about how evolution and the origins of life are related are well founded.  In addition it means that anti-theists that say evolution doesn’t speak to the origins of life, while being scientifically correct, are simply being intellectually dishonest.

Unless you can precisely define what life is, any claim that there are common ancestors between all species is just a religious dogma. To think it isn’t, is precisely to be an anti-theist (a person with a religion that hates different religions).