Although it is generally accepted that the origin of life is unrelated to the theory of evolution by natural selection, contrary to the claims of creationists, Darwin seemed to have a more nuanced view on the matter in Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species.

"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated."

The context of this quotation is, of course, the evolution of the eye. Darwin appears to suggest that the origin of specialized light-sensitive cells (i.e photoreceptors) - a critical first step - is akin to the problem of how life began.

Why should we care what a long dead scientist thought about the matter?

BooBoo wrote:Although it is generally accepted that the origin of life is unrelated to the theory of evolution by natural selection, contrary to the claims of creationists, Darwin seemed to have a more nuanced view on the matter in Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species.

"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated."

The context of this quotation is, of course, the evolution of the eye. Darwin appears to suggest that the origin of specialized light-sensitive cells (i.e photoreceptors) - a critical first step - is akin to the problem of how life began.

it is one of the few areas where the creationists have a case, but present it for false reasons. Biological evolution is a 'stand alone" body of theory. However, it is like reading the second or third book of a trilogy. Before biology, chemical evolution continues on the success of natural selection. Perhaps the first book would be about the natural selection of physical laws. In any case, all three are investigated via methodological naturalism. So while creationists may be correct about the fact the evolution is a "theory about the middle" [Darwin said as much!], they do not give credit to methodological naturalism for these discoveries, as they are too pre-occupied with their mythical universe.

Onyx8 wrote:Why should we care what a long dead scientist thought about the matter?

Maybe because he invented the whole discipline?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Why should we care what a long dead scientist thought about the matter?

Maybe because he invented the whole discipline?

Why should we care about that?

Onyx8 wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Why should we care what a long dead scientist thought about the matter?

Maybe because he invented the whole discipline?

Why should we care about that?

Because Darwin was probably unique for those times in specifying what he was merely speculating about [warm little ponds for abiogenesis, the mechanism for inheritance] and those hypotheses for which he had honestly and fairly evaluated the available evidence for. In short, Darwin made no embarrassing errors, and was an honest broker. We can contrast his attitude as a scientist with that of Newton, who was rightly acclaimed for his genius on Newtonian mechanics and then proceeded to screw the pooch with his alchemy. Darwin got things wrong, but where there was evidence, he was an honest broker, and where there was nothing concrete, he admitted he was speculating. A huge difference. So even when Darwin was wrong his thinking was "correct", in the sense of prudent. Not a bad habit of mind to emulate when doing science IMHO.
Edit, wrong smilie

Evolution of an organ within self replicating organisms is a different topic to development of self replication.

The op is a category error.

Fenrir wrote:Evolution of an organ within self replicating organisms is a different topic to development of self replication.

The op is a category error.

Yes and no. Orange and apples are different, but they are both fruits. Ribozymes compete [and "cooperate] within a population of ribosomes, where NS picks between variations. A population of organisms with variation in eye development leads [mostly and with all due respect to drift] fixation or higher frequency of improvements in eye patterns over previous generations.

It will get worse. The day humans manage to replicate abiogenesis in lab some will say: If man could do it, so could God. The next step then is, well, time machine.

tuco wrote:It will get worse. The day humans manage to replicate abiogenesis in lab some will say: If man could do it, so could God. The next step then is, well, time machine.

So a wee ape in a remote corner of an average galaxy can work it out? But then we have to teach this limp-dick god how to do it???

Its not about teaching, its about .. design. "God did not create (everything) by some silly word uttering, a metaphor for once believed to be mysterious ways, God designs rigorously in accordance with nature." Just wait ;)

Onyx8 is correct. It's the religious who masturbate about ancient people and founders. Scientists honor the memory of pioneers, but we don't get hung up on their every word.

BooBoo wrote:Although it is generally accepted that the origin of life is unrelated to the theory of evolution by natural selection, contrary to the claims of creationists, Darwin seemed to have a more nuanced view on the matter in Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species.

"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated."

The context of this quotation is, of course, the evolution of the eye. Darwin appears to suggest that the origin of specialized light-sensitive cells (i.e photoreceptors) - a critical first step - is akin to the problem of how life began.

All this depends on what level of detail one expects from an explanation. If you're satisfied with explaining it no deeper than the cellular level, the statement "some kind of nerve-cell became sensitive to light" would suffice as the origin of vision, which you can then expand on and detail how a multicellular eye subsequently developed.

I think in this particular instance, Darwin is actually wrong. Of course it concerns us how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, if we are to understand how evolution happens and how our, or similar such senses in other organisms, originated. It happens to be the case that how such cells do become sensitive to light is well within the remits of evolutionary biology, because it is well explained by understanding the mechanism of inheritance: Genetics and molecular biology.

But genetics can't explain the origin of life, there has to be genes already in existence, which just leads to the next question of where those genes came from?

Aliens. Saw it in a movie.

Rumraket wrote:

BooBoo wrote:Although it is generally accepted that the origin of life is unrelated to the theory of evolution by natural selection, contrary to the claims of creationists, Darwin seemed to have a more nuanced view on the matter in Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species.

"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated."

The context of this quotation is, of course, the evolution of the eye. Darwin appears to suggest that the origin of specialized light-sensitive cells (i.e photoreceptors) - a critical first step - is akin to the problem of how life began.

All this depends on what level of detail one expects from an explanation. If you're satisfied with explaining it no deeper than the cellular level, the statement "some kind of nerve-cell became sensitive to light" would suffice as the origin of vision, which you can then expand on and detail how a multicellular eye subsequently developed.

I think in this particular instance, Darwin is actually wrong. Of course it concerns us how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, if we are to understand how evolution happens and how our, or similar such senses in other organisms, originated. It happens to be the case that how such cells do become sensitive to light is well within the remits of evolutionary biology, because it is well explained by understanding the mechanism of inheritance: Genetics and molecular biology.

But genetics can't explain the origin of life, there has to be genes already in existence, which just leads to the next question of where those genes came from?

Well, it has already been demonstrated that ribosomes can emerge from abiotic "organic" [facepalm] chemistry. They have functionality from only five bases. Not the whole answer by any means, but it least it makes a naturalistic investigation worth while. Ribozymes satisfy the twin requirements of autocatalysis [when paired] thus ensuring replication, and the capacity for information retention. Just add errors in replication [inevitable], and thus variation for selection to work. Faster or more stable rybozymes tending to increase in frequency in the 'soup". And rybozymes still exist today, but of course nucleic acids are no longer naked phenotypes. It might be all bollocks, but it is plausable enough to continue the search. So far, although some difficulties have merged [perhaps due to our lack of imagination more than anything else to discover mechanism], there is still progress. So for the present, the investigation of chemical evolution is bearing fruit.

Rumraket wrote:
I think in this particular instance, Darwin is actually wrong. Of course it concerns us how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, if we are to understand how evolution happens and how our, or similar such senses in other organisms, originated. It happens to be the case that how such cells do become sensitive to light is well within the remits of evolutionary biology, because it is well explained by understanding the mechanism of inheritance: Genetics and molecular biology.

Evidently, Darwin did not think that heritable variation and selection were sufficient to explain the origin of the photoreceptor. Or, rather, he couldn't see how slight modification to a normal cell could result in something like a specialized light-sensitive one.

BooBoo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
I think in this particular instance, Darwin is actually wrong. Of course it concerns us how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, if we are to understand how evolution happens and how our, or similar such senses in other organisms, originated. It happens to be the case that how such cells do become sensitive to light is well within the remits of evolutionary biology, because it is well explained by understanding the mechanism of inheritance: Genetics and molecular biology.

Evidently, Darwin did not think that heritable variation and selection were sufficient to explain the origin of the photoreceptor.

Citations?
And even if true, so what?

BooBoo wrote: Or, rather, he couldn't see how slight modification to a normal cell could result in something like a specialized light-sensitive one.

Please tell me you're not trying to reinvent the eye quote-mine....

Darwin compiled the theory of evolution over a century ago. That he wasn't aware of everything that is now detailed in modern evolutionary theory isn't surprising.
However he did propose a model for the evolution of the eye from a simple form to more complex in Origin of the Species as I recall. Not read the book however.

BooBoo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
I think in this particular instance, Darwin is actually wrong. Of course it concerns us how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, if we are to understand how evolution happens and how our, or similar such senses in other organisms, originated. It happens to be the case that how such cells do become sensitive to light is well within the remits of evolutionary biology, because it is well explained by understanding the mechanism of inheritance: Genetics and molecular biology.

Evidently, Darwin did not think that heritable variation and selection were sufficient to explain the origin of the photoreceptor. Or, rather, he couldn't see how slight modification to a normal cell could result in something like a specialized light-sensitive one.

Not that old quote mine again?

Here's what Darwin wrote.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Which makes the Creotards all wet and all. Until you add the very next paragraph:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

Or indeed the next three pages.

Most famous quote mine ever.

epepke wrote:Onyx8 is correct. It's the religious who masturbate about ancient people and founders. Scientists honor the memory of pioneers, but we don't get hung up on their every word.

I hope you are not implying anything by that. If you see something wrong with admiring how well science can be done, and who those people were, then I feel sorry for you. It has fuck all to do with licking the arses of priests and gods, for fucks sake!