|Mathabiotical evolution & replication (e.g. crystal)|
Au contraire to those of you who fear abiotic evolution.
The far greater portion of total evolution that has taken place in the universe (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 27) has been abiotic evolution, so, shame on you for your want of ability to conceive of the big picture concerning the bulk of evolution.
Preferring to cling to the baby-blanket of the neophytic biotic evolution is an intellectual tantrum, rather than a valid argument (The Uncertain Gene).
"Majoring in the minors," as it were, is not comprehensive, it is reductio ad absurdum, unwisely mixing clingy notions with teleological, defective nomenclature (The Uncertain Gene - 2).
The Latin people who invented the word ēvolvō (before the car existed) knew what they were talking about:
evolve ... From Latin ēvolvere, present active infinitive of ēvolvō (“unroll, unfold”), from ē (“out of”), short form of ex, + volvō (“roll”).(Dictionary, emphasis added; cf. evolutus). Don't be afraid to explore abiotic evolution, because otherwise you will miss the big picture.
To move in regular procession through a system ... To change, transform, develop.
Thinking exercise: "Abiotic synthesis -- the preparation of a compound, often of biological relevance, without the use of biological agents such as enzymes or nucleic acids ..."; so remember that the recoil from abiotic evolution is a hangover from a darker age of science:
The word organic is historical, dating to the 1st century. For many centuries, Western alchemists believed in vitalism.(Wikipedia, "organic compound"). The "evolution only pertains to organic life forms" meme is tethered to obsolete science such as the belief that DNA is alive, is biotic, rather than it being an abiotic, non-living, molecule (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 37).
Vitalism survived for a while even after the rise of modern atomic theory and the replacement of the Aristotelian elements by those we know today.
Even though vitalism has been discredited, scientific nomenclature retains the distinction between organic and inorganic compounds. The modern meaning of organic compound is any compound that contains a significant amount of carbon—even though many of the organic compounds known today have no connection to any substance found in living organisms.
There is no single "official" definition of an organic compound. Some textbooks define an organic compound as one that contains one or more C-H bonds. Others include C-C bonds in the definition. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon―it is organic.
Even the broader definition of "carbon-containing molecules" requires the exclusion of carbon-containing alloys (including steel), a relatively small number of carbon-containing compounds such as metal carbonates and carbonyls, simple oxides of carbon and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon and simple carbon halides and sulfides, which are usually considered inorganic.
BTW, we landed on a comet today (Did Abiotic Intelligence Precede Biotic Intelligence?).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.