But on the other hand we scientists and philosophers are tied to our definitions. We demarcate and categorize and subdivide in order to better understand everything. I can’t begin to understand the astrophysics that belies cosmology – at least not without Brian Greene’s help.

These two opposing tendencies created the challenge of reductionism even before irreducible complexity came onto the scene. Science is intertwined with this tension, making it easier to conflate evolution, natural selection, and OOL.

Like Anastasia says, Genesis is a story of abiogenesis. In the end, I think that’s why OOL and evolution are so linked. It’s too easy to use the same words but attach different (but similar sounding) definitions. Which brings me back to why I think we need newer innovative ways to teach science.

Evolution is the change of a system through time, while Darwinian natural selection is the mechanism of that change. At its core, natural selection requires that there be:

1. variation among individuals, that
2. can be passed on to “progeny” (however defined), that
3. makes a difference in how many progeny they are likely to have, which means that
4. in the future the variants that are relatively more successful at reproduction than the rest of the population will be relatively more abundant.

Once you have cells that can reproduce by dividing, its easy to see how this goes down the road, but what about before you have cells? Well, note that there is nothing in that list that requires individual organisms, or cells, or even biological life for this process to happen (the mathematical field of Genetic Algorithms is just one example).

The thing about the law of natural selection that most people, and even many biologists, fail to realize is that it is as much a natural law as thermodynamics — if those conditions are met, it WILL occur, no matter what.

So consider the following series of events:

It is well established that in the conditions present on the early earth (liquid water with a constant input of energy to keep it in a far from equilibrium state) that a huge number of molecules are formed. This satisfies condition #1 for sure, if you consider these molecules to be “individuals”.

There’s also the huge number of niches that were available on the early earth. Colder, hotter, sunnier, shadier, with huge variation in what minerals are locally available, and so there are many variations being constantly tried out.

Once these molecules are formed, they persist until they react with something else. The more stable molecules will persist longer, so over time there will be more of those stable molecules. This is ALMOST condition #3, but its simply a rate-of-decay difference. The important thing lacking is iteration: the winners in one “generation” getting a bigger share of the next.

However, the instant that any molecules are formed that promote their own replication in even the slightest amount (either directly, by some sort of RNA base pairing mechanism, or indirectly, by improving the local chemical environment such that molecules like themselves are more likely to be produced by the constant chemical reactions) then condition #2 is satisfied, and natural selection WILL begin to increase their abundance, giving you condition #4.

Just as surely as thermodynamics will begin moving heat from warmer areas to colder ones as soon as a difference is established, as soon as the capacity for iteration arises, natural selection begins to act. And all it takes is one niche to begin support this — once a niche is established, it will be constantly sending out “seeds” to nearby niches, and the selective pressure to be capable of colonizing them will be intense.

As for the definition of evolution that I am using here is the one that states that evolution is descent with modification, modification being a function of changes in biotic/prebiotic structures as they respond to environmental pressures.

My main point is that the definition between life and non-life is not solidly fixed enough in the philosophy of science to make the statement that there is a hard line that can be drawn between “evolution” and “abiogenesis.”

As to your final comment, I really need think that in order for you to get that chip off your shoulder you should take a biology class or two. My complaint is that in responding to strawman complaints against evolution, defenders of science should engage in the discussion in order to show creationists (inclusive of OEC, YEC, ID and exclusive of TE) where their arguments fail, and not to back off on this issue.

It’s a teaching opportunity for those who have ears to hear. I hope that here at Clashing Culture we have made clear that this is not an anti-religious site. See Anastasia’s brief, but extraordinarily clear, comment.

It seems that the arguments you are trying to make are not really geared toward the issue of discovering the origins of life or whether evolution did have a part to play in the OOL, but rather to drown out dissenting voices. There’s a big difference between discussions geared toward discovery, and those merely designed to fortify already entrenched positions.

I’ve always been puzzled by the idea that the origin of life is outside the purview of evolution. I think that idea takes too narrow a view of evolution, decoupling it from the rest of the sciences and our understanding of the universe.

Evolution is not a stand-alone theory, wholly independent from the rest of the sciences; it forms a link or two in the chain of our understanding. That understanding requires many different disciplines, including astronomy, biology, cosmology, and geology to name just a few.

Even if evolution did not concern itself with the rise of life from non-life, science in some why would look at that. It must, as science is the way we understand our physical world. And the rise of life happened, without question, in the physical world.