Evolutionary biologists and those scientists that work with the subject of abiogenesis (or biogenesis, its the same field of study, and the two terms seem to be interchangable) work on completly different subject matter. Evolutionary theory does not necessitate the knowlege of where and how life began, and the chemistry of abiogenisis and gene transfer among early organisms may not follow evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis may require knowlege of evolutionary theory but evolutionary theory does not require understanding of abiogenesis, where and how life began. This is something that YECs/IDCs like to convolute because they believe that evolutionary theory is based in things like the Miller experiment, which it isn't. That was my point. You are splitting hairs.
Has a BS in Biology, getting an MS in Entomology, D/N/T
PS: Besides, biological evolution takes place in populations of organisms, not a soup of nucleic acids. Please to not be confusing biology with organic chemistry. Thank you.
Oh, and also thank you so much for trying to use "selection". That made my day, because now I can bitch about how people do not understand the theory of natural selection and try to pass of their colloquialisms as biological science.
CHEMICAL SELECTION =/= NATURAL SELECTION
and for GODS SAKE, "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean survival of the "strongest" or "most stable". What it means is the ability of an organism to have ofspring that can reproduce. Fit organisms are those that produce offspring which reproduce themselves. It has nothing to do with how strong or stable (whatever you might mean by that in this context is), but how good they are at spewing out children. if you live for 2 days, fuck, have little clones of yourself, and die, you are by definition more evolutionarily fit than someone who lives for over 100 years and never has kids.
By this definition, I would guess that you are not fit. Nature selected against YUO.
yes i was splitting hairs, i'm sorry if it seemed an attack, it was only meant as clarification.
My point was that the forces that drive evolution are no different from those that drive changes in abiotic systems,
can you please explain to me how selection on chemicals is different from selection on organisms(as carriers of genes)? Its both just probabilities right? the one with the highest probability to continue existing is the fittest and that is true for alleles, molecules, memes and brands of beer.
by chemically most stable i mean most likely to stay in its current form, He(g) is more stable that H2(g) in an oxygenated environment because H2(g) has an tendency to react with oxygen to create water and helium can't even react with oxygen (being a noble gas) thereby the fraction hydrogen-gas wil decrease in oxygenated enviroments. This is no different from the reduction in allele frequency you find in a population of moths.
what do you think of my 'probabilty of continued existence' view on natural selection?
PS. the term natural selection pisses me off, as if unnatural selection can't influence evolution.
Holy shit, YES, we have a live one here and they can take my snark!
Okay, to your first point, yes, they are different. Why? Because in sexual selection (a subset of natural selection), mate selection is not random. Natural Selection is not a random process. Genetic Drift, however, IS a random process. The greatest controversy in evolutionary biology is which of those two are more important? Most biologists agree that both natural selection and genetic drift occur in some amount, but very few agree as to what proportion each occur. Are there situations where one is irrelevant?
Natural selection, at least when we speak of it including sexual selection, does not deal with probabilities, as I said. Darwins thesis was that individuals with favorable traits are more likely to reproduce because they are A. more fit with the environment (environmental selection) and b. more attractive to a mate (sexual selection), and that these traits are passed on to the offspring and become a larger precentage of the population. This is counting, however, only for traits that are visible and would be considered detrimental or favorable. The other traits, hidden or neutral, will change according to probability. This change is called genetic drift. Like I said above, biologists argue alot about which one is more important in evolutionary change.
Now, compairing that to chemicals is like compairing apples and oranges. The biological process is a combination of random and deterministic elements with billions of variables. The chemical process is relatively simple. You can't compare the two because they are completly dissimilar. The reduction in allele frequency (I'm guessing you are reffering to peppered moth populations) occured because of a thousand different variables coming together at once, habitat selection for the moth, prey selection and availability for the birds, climate and human population effects. Its such a mixture of complex random and deterministic events that comparing it to chemical processes is oversimplfying to the point where it bears no resemblance to the truth. Its too unpredictable.
When you talk about probability of continued existance, I believe you are talking about variables, whereas with evolutionary biology you are talking about alleles within a genepool. Mixed metaphors, different processes, too many variables.
Also, unnatural selection is a bad misspelling, a satyrical meme, and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of natural selection.