The Theory of Evolution

[CCWoody]

Today at 03:52 PM Arikay said this in Post #39

The scientific theory of evolution is about how life, changed and adapted on earth.
Its about what happens with life, once its already here, so it really doesnt have any say on how life came to be, only how life changed afterwards.

Next question:  Is it fair to say that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the change and adaption of life on earth from the first moment that there was life on earth?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 11:09 PM CCWoody said this in Post #40 Would it be fair to say, then, that the theory of Evolution must assume that life came from non-life in order for the theory to be a valid explaination for the variation of life that we observe?

No. It doesn't matter where the first life comes from.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 06:14 PM CCWoody said this in Post #41

Next question:  Is it fair to say that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the change and adaption of life on earth from the first moment that there was life on earth?

Yes, I would say so. The tricky part, though, can be in determining the fine line between non-life and life with respect to the idea of life arising from non-living chemicals (many a debate has been waged on that subject; see some of the lucaspa versus DNAunion debates).

But regardless, once you have life capable of imperfect reproduction, the theory of evolution can be applied.

 

[mac_philo]

Evolution is a scientific theory centered around explaining diversity via differential replication. It makes no difference whether or not there has been life for an infinite timespan, whether life came from non-life a finite amount of time ago, or whether life came from a supernatural event. Of course 'life' refers to simple organic matter; not, for example, humans.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 05:20 PM MartinM said this in Post #42

No. It doesn't matter where the first life comes from.

Does this mean that there are different theories of Evolution for the theists and atheists?  Does the atheist version assume that life came from non-life.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 11:54 PM CCWoody said this in Post #45 Does this mean that there are different theories of Evolution for the theists and atheists?  Does the atheist version assume that life came from non-life

No. Theists and atheists may (or may not) disagree on what came before evolution, but that is irrelevant to the theory itself.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 05:20 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #43

But regardless, once you have life capable of imperfect reproduction, the theory of evolution can be applied.

Does this mean that the theory of Evolution must assume that either the first life was capable of only imperfect reproduction or that there was a calamity which caused perfect reproduction to be imperfect.

This also brings up a new question:  Does the theory of Evolution assume that first life was capable of reproduction or does it assume that identical first life came into being multiple times and was somehow changed into reproducing life.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[chickenman]

the theory of evolution doesn't have to assume anything, imperfect reproduction exists

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

One of the definitions of life includes the capability to reproduce. Reproduction was likely "pre-life" - example certain self-reproducing organic molecules are not considered "life."

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 06:04 PM chickenman said this in Post #48

the theory of evolution doesn't have to assume anything, imperfect reproduction exists

It evidently has to assume that imperfect reproduction has always existed where there was life.  Or are you going to tell me that this has somehow been proven?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

 

[chickenman]

it doesn't need to be proven, evolution describes imperfectlt replicating life forms

if there was ever such a thing as perfect reproduction, evolution would not describe it

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 06:06 PM Joe_Sixpack said this in Post #49

One of the definitions of life includes the capability to reproduce. Reproduction was likely "pre-life" - example certain self-reproducing organic molecules are not considered "life."

Well, yes, I seem to recall from my last bio class that life must have the capability to reproduce.  My question was not about that.  I was asking about first life.

It seems to me that you are telling me that "first life" meets all the same characteristics of life today.  That's fair enough.  I just want to be sure.

Nevertheless, you seem to be assuming that reproduction was a pre-life property.  Is this correct?

And are you also assuming that "first life" was capable of only imperfect reproduction?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 06:20 PM chickenman said this in Post #51

it doesn't need to be proven, evolution describes imperfectlt replicating life forms

if there was ever such a thing as perfect reproduction, evolution would not describe it

Very well, granted, Evolution would not describe perfect reproduction.  I didn't think otherwise.

We, of course, have one of two situations:

Life came from non-Life perfectly and then was devolved to imperfect reproduction where it then started to evolve after it was degraded, but not destroyed or mutated beyond the ability to survive and reproduce.

Life came from non-life imperfectly yet managed to evolve with imperfections that were not fatal to reproduction or any other aspect of life.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[chickenman]

I don't think imperfect reproduction/replication is possible

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 06:43 PM chickenman said this in Post #54

I don't think imperfect reproduction/replication is possible

Why? And why do you think it was never possible?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[chickenman]

because whatever molecule encoded the heriditary information would have to be sheilded from the environment to remain perfect, and yet require energy from its environment to replicate

a photon of UV light is all it takes to introduce an error into DNA

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 07:23 PM CCWoody said this in Post #52

Well, yes, I seem to recall from my last bio class that life must have the capability to reproduce.  My question was not about that.  I was asking about first life.

Mules are sterile. They cannot reproduce themselves. Yet they are alive.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:10 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #57



Mules are sterile. They cannot reproduce themselves. Yet they are alive.

That doesnt seem to be the point he is trying to make, it would seem he means life in general.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 09:03 PM chickenman said this in Post #56

because whatever molecule encoded the heriditary information would have to be sheilded from the environment to remain perfect, and yet require energy from its environment to replicate

a photon of UV light is all it takes to introduce an error into DNA

Why would it have to be shielded from the environment to remain perfect? Why would a photon of UV light introduce error into its DNA?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yesterday at 10:21 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58


That doesnt seem to be the point he is trying to make, it would seem he means life in general.

But the point I'm making is that we need an acceptible definition of what "life" is and isn't before we can try to figure out how it happened.

The creationist argument is based on the idea that life cannot form from non-life. Before we attack this problem, we need to know for certain what life and non-life are. The ability to reproduce is apparantly not a requirement.