Evolution presupposes nothing about the origin of the replicators. If the universe and said replicators were created by an external entity, then yes, I suppose you'd be right. But the odds of that are a tad slim (Occam's Razor, I love thee).Created? So evolution begins after creation?
I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.Once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of evolution.
I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.
If I "know nothing of evolution", then evolution has failed because that would mean that few to none are able to demonstrate that they know evolution to your satisfaction. So this all becomes a mute point, because you would be admiting that no one knows anything about evolution. Although it has been my experance that what you accuse others of, you are guilty of. So perhaps you are the one that knows nothing of evolution.
Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption.
Don't expect any intellectually honest religious authority to challenge it either. Most agree that in order to know something we have to be able to, y'know, know something.Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.
If you have a reasonable knowledge of evolution then you know the difference between evolution and the origin of the universe and the origin of life.I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there.
So, to complain about evolution not being able to explain these other origins while knowing that these are outside of the theory is to LIE about what evolution is. 10 Commandments ring a bell?What was here before time began, or what was here before evolution began?
Evolutionist always say you have to have something to evolved, so where did that something come from?
I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there.
And yet, we're not the ones trying to link Communism to Darwinism, are we?I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.
If I "know nothing of evolution", then evolution has failed because that would mean that few to none are able to demonstrate that they know evolution to your satisfaction. So this all becomes a mute point, because you would be admiting that no one knows anything about evolution. Although it has been my experance that what you accuse others of, you are guilty of. So perhaps you are the one that knows nothing of evolution.
Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this.
In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption. Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.
It can also denote order. So, what was there before time?It doesn't matter. "Before" implicitly denotes time.
In any case, time is a fundamental part of the universe. It began "when" the universe began.
Foehammer... Dude, you GOTTA study the physics...It can also denote order. So, what was there before time?
FoeHammer.
Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption. Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.
Evolution is proved false by Big Bang theory. Because explosions don't create cells, we know that both of them never happenedDoes this even relate to evolution? This seems more of a hard-core physics question.
Lemmings, I disagree... TOE is not dependant on cells, ultra early evolutionary processes may have occured in prions and basic pre cursor proteins for millions of years before the advent of the lipid bubble necesary to consider something a cellEvolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created. Thus there where no imperfect replicators prior to evolution.
[FONT="]After seeing John’s thread mistaking Social Darwinism for Biological Evolution, I am trying to set boundaries between the various forces with ‘evolution’ in their name. While they are both subject to their own forms of natural selection and mutations, I consider the ability to reproduce the defining aspect between Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution.[/FONT]Lemmings, I disagree... TOE is not dependant on cells, ultra early evolutionary processes may have occured in prions and basic pre cursor proteins for millions of years before the advent of the lipid bubble necesary to consider something a cell
prions reproduce acellularly!After seeing John’s thread mistaking Social Darwinism for Biological Evolution, I am trying to set boundaries between the various forces with ‘evolution’ in their name. While they are both subject to their own forms of natural selection and mutations, I consider the ability to reproduce the defining aspect between Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution.
EPII, Dudette, If this is the result of a study of the physics you can keep it. As for an ''open mind'' that is a comment best directed towards those who have closed theirs when they claim that the question of what was there before time is is a meaningless one.Foehammer... Dude, you GOTTA study the physics...
There MAY have been a timelike analogue before the universe, there may not have been. Its impossible to know scientifically about what, if anything, existed before the universe. However, and this we are fairly sure about, anything detectable about our current timeline (yesterday->today->tommorrow->) began at the first instant of this universe. The conceopt of "before" this universe, as far as the concept of time as a mathematical co-ordinate, is essentially meaningless.
Hawkin suggests that time, infact, may originally have been a SPATIAL co-ordinate, that, as the universe expanded and spatial pressure decreased, began acting the way we know it today... so, theoretically, there may have been a "period" in the early history of the universe when there was no time, only direction.
Of course, given that our brains are developed to calculate the balistics of a thrown rock, and our speech centre developed for telling other members of the tribe where the good fruit is, some of this can be hard to describe and understand. Its certainly counter intuitive.
But please realise that counter-intuitve is not the same as "wrong". It just means you need to open your mind sometimes.
As for an ''open mind'' that is a comment best directed towards those who have closed theirs when they claim that the question of what was there before time is is a meaningless one.
FoeHammer.