Does evolution have an origin?

Question

Or is it a perpetually infinite process that's "always" been in motion, without a beginning? If one could somehow "trace" evolution back to it's "starting point" -- the point that "got the ball rolling" to jump-start it into a live active process that started spawning life, would you even find a "beginning" point there? I guess my question basically is, What is the "cause" behind the process of evolution? Since "evolution" can take credit for spawning life, "what" can take credit for jump-starting it into an active process?

Don't worry, this isn't a question with some hidden agenda to promote religion. I'm simply curious, as I find both God and the evolution theory to be flawed concepts. And I'm merely interrogating Evolution as to how it came to be a "live", active process in the first place. I'm searching for some logical "cause" behind it's life-spawning capability.

no_bias_here: What's "absurd" is to insinuate that a process with a mutating, and life-spawning capability, has absolutely NO "explanation" for itself; but it's active, and it's spawning life. Granted, a very sloooooooooow process, but an ACTIVE process, nonetheless. It has NO explanation for itself, no cause, no origin we know of, but it's active, and gradually creating life. It's a process-machine that works behind the scenes.

no_bias_here: Evolution is the sole phenomena and "driving force" behind life as we know it. It's an unseen, "blueprint" behind life's existence. No, it's not a conscious, "decision-making entity", but I'm simply questioning the sole purpose behind "how" it does what "it" does.

Answer 1

Would you ask the same question about Gravity? Substitute the word "gravity," or any other scientific principle you accept, for the word "evolution" in your question, and you may better understand the absurdity of your question. Evolution is not some invention or formula, it is a useful, simplified description of events.

As for your comment directly to me, please take no offense at the word "absurdity." Evolution has no "self." It is not some conscious entity. It is a chemical, physical process, nothing more, nothing less. Evolution does not decide which mutations will occur, or how many (please note that, Newdjguy - "would evolution not be sufficiently adaptable to the speed of environmental change to ensure that no species became threatened or go extinct?" is like saying "why can't gravity control itself so it doesn't hurt as much when you fall").

Whatever and how many mutations occur, occur. Those mutations that provide advantages for procreation carry on, and those that don't, don't.

The evolution you seem to describe would be some kind of intelligent entity, which is exactly what it is not.

Your desire to understand it's "purpose" is an anthropomorphism. Again, if you would please, ask "What is the purpose of gravity?" in the same contect you ask this of evolution, and perhaps you will see the point. Or not.

The principles of organic chemistry are as much "driving force" behind the creation of life, but I see you demonstrate little or no interest in determining the "purpose" of molecular carbon processes.

Answer 2

Let's define biological evolution first. The theory doesn't attempt to explain how the universe and all its laws were created, or even how life itself arose. What is does explain is how different organisms developed from the initial life form that arose. When an organism acquires a trait which gives it an advantage in its environment, it has a greater ability to produce offspring. If the trait is heritable then the offspring too will have this trait, thus in turn being more able to produce offspring. In this way, favourable changes acquired accumulate from generation to generation, resulting in evolution of a species.

Changes may occur that allow an organism to move into a different environment to its predecessors, which will allow it to develop into a seperate species due to isolation, or the newer organism may simply be better than its predecessor at the same role, in which case it will replace the predecessor as the dominant type. Changes between generations are small, however. You don't all of a sudden go from frog to lizard in one generation.

Evolution isn't actually a force that sits in the background improving different species. It's a chance process. Advantageous mutations allow an organism to be more successful. Note that most mutations that occur in organisms, being chance, result in either adverse affects or little effect at all. The chances of a mutation actually being an advantage are very low. This explains why evolution occurs so slowly.

So evolution isn't a real "force," but simply a logical sequence of events. When it is described as a force, it is actually metaphorical. The true force operating is the environment, imposing changes on organisms if they are to survive.

I've noticed that a lot of (not all of) the people offering explanations here adopt a knowledgeable tone despite the fact that they lack a basic knowledge of evolution, again thinking of it as an actual force. If you watch the introduction of the movie X-men (which was the only good one in the series), it too seems to describe evolution as a "force." However, it is true in stating that there may occur periods of rapid evolution from time to time. This can happen when there are sudden climate changes. For example, mammoths evolved hair when as the climate cooled towards the ice age. Creatures that don't adapt to the changing environment die out.

I find that the theory of evolution is only ever said to be "flawed" by people who don't understand it. They often point out several of the said "flaws," which only serve to point out flaws in their understanding to those who understand the topic. Your question is like asking, "Why is there a one in six chance that a six-sided dice will land on five? How did the force controlling this arise?" It's not a force, it's just probability.

Answer 3

Probably infinate.

If the Singularity Big Bang is correct that singularity didn't just sit there motionless doing nothing and then spontaniously banged for no reason. So there had to be a evolution to the singularity and the big bang is simply another manifestation.

Some, however, tend to view radical changes as not be evolutionary but revolutionary or mutations. A big bang could fall into that catagory. Hence they view that as the starting point for time and space on an INORGANIC level.

We can easily understand some INORGANIC evolution and can even produce it to a degree in the lab (we cannot, for example, produce water out of Hydrogen and Oxygen with great ease).

What is hard to fully undestand is the origin of the charge particles that start it all. I'm not talking of the Big Bang which could generate it, but I'm talking the MASS of the universe that has always been here. The free electrons and protons.

It's also hard to understand the origin of ORGANIC evolution, for this requires spontanious making or creation of ORGANIC materials from INORGANIC materials. While not an impossiblity, it has never been done in the lab. You can't dump stuff from a Gilbert Chemistry set into a test tube and make a protien strain, amobea or bacterium come out of the muck.

After that we can't fully define the process of how that organic life form evolves into other life forms. We have no "organic atomic rules" like we do with protons and electrons on which to predict future clusters.

Now, if you take the religious view, OUR evolution started with God after he finished creation. Once things were set in motion they followed a set of rules he probably created.

But this does not explain God's evolution and we have no basis to even tackle that one!

Answer 4

It's just statistics. Basic organic compounds which had the ability to self-catalyse and occasionally mutate, thus evolve through natural selection, would have out-competed other compounds for many ingredients in the long run. Organic compounds which didn't have these abilities may well may have done very well for while. Some very very basic ones still, methane etc. But at some point, the compounds which had been evolving would be harnessing more and more of the crucial ingredients for their own, ever more complicated, chemical reaction. Life.

No one can calculate the odds of self-catalysing / mutating compounds arising, since no-one knows exactly how it happened. But the point is, evolution by natural selection is nothing more than statistics.

Answer 5

"a million. New sorts of lifestyles were created by technique of an sensible fashion designer in a lab. This has been talked about in nature and is scientifically testable. New advancements/lifestyles/speciation has occurred without the evolution/organic determination procedure. (reality-scientists growing to be new species/lifestyles by technique of adjusting genes and growing to be new genetic codes)." does no longer replacing the genes be evolution? did not the genes they altered get "chosen"? would not evolution anticipate that new species will arise by technique of the mutation, determination, copying, etc of genes? have not those scientists only sped up evolution in a lab? What are those testable predictions identity makes? Evolution makes thousands, which have all became out to be precise even as examined. identity has made 0 testable predictions. The hypotheses recommend by technique of identity proponents have ALL been shown to be invalid.

Answer 6

I think the next question, presuming evolution to be validated and leaving no room for doubt as to its validity, would be what is next in the evolutionary process for humans? One might argue that it has stopped or in some ways, perhaps culturally, begun to devolve. Or is human evolution simply a theory spawned from the result of breeding across cultures, nationalities, races, etc. We see that the result of inbreeding to be a generally bad thing (not just socially and morally) - look at some of the results. We also see that breeding for a "superior" race as was tried in Germany in the mid-20th century didn't have positive results.

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Wouldn't they all have evolved? If not, why were some isolated in such a way as to never make that leap?

Then there is the question of survival of the fittest and evolution driven by the need to survive various environmental changes. If this were possible, would evolution not be sufficiently adaptable to the speed of environmental change to ensure that no species became threatened or go extinct? If habitat destruction is reducing various populations, would those populations not adapt in order to survive? Manatees are constantly threatened by boat propellers; one might argue that evolution would speed the development of the species such that it can hear them coming sooner and/or move faster to avoid contact.

Given these questions, among many more, subscribing to evolution seems to be a great leap of "religious" faith.

Answer 7

It began with the Big Bang.

But as for actual carbon-based Earth life forms, the latest theory I've heard is tghat the very very most basic elements for this equation came from space; meteors. Who would have thought?

Answer 8

The word "evolution" is a noun from the verb "to evolve". This shows that there is an origin somewhere before evolving to the present state.

Answer 9

One currently accepted possibility (mind you, no one knows for sure) is that repeated lightning strikes caused random proteins to fuse and gain life. From there, things just took their natural course. This is a very simplified explanation, of course, and not everyone agrees. But it is one theory.

Answer 10

I don't think you're going to find Y/A visitors who can explain biogenesis. That doesn't mean they won't try. Generally, I prefer to give my own answer and not use links, but your question is too complex. I'm going to refer you to a geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who has done a lot of calculations on the subject.