Can you explain this for me?

[steen]

I made no reference to any book.

You made a reference to "origin of the species" which is a reference to Darwin's book.

Do you not think that there has been evolution of the continents leading up to their current state?

Evolution is biologic change in populations of organisms over generations. That has nothing to do with geology. You seem to need to brush up on your scientific terminology if you want to hold this discussion.

So, you speculate that the starfish brain, such as they are,

They are not.

might have evolved from the more centralized brains of the lamprey or lancelet? Isn't that backwards?

No, you are misunderstanding me. These primitive brains are the precursours to our brains. The starfish split off before this developmental structure emerged.

If you believe that, then why did you offer notocords as an evolutionary precessor to starfish?

I am not. They are precursors to OUR brains. And again, this is not about "belief," but rather about what the evidence shows.

So, you argue that notocords didn't lead to starfish and you argue that starfish didn't lead to humans, yet you think you've somehow addressed the origin of the brain?

Of your and my brain. Starfish really don't have brains.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Do you not think that there has been evolution of the continents leading up to their current state?

That is like asking whether scientists who accept gravity understand how it accounts for the gravity of a political situation, or whether scientists who accept Einstein's theory of relativity see how it accounts for the relationships of relatives.

You are conflating the scientific theory of evolution with the non-scientific meanings of the word "evolution", such as just meaning change over time.

 

[Poke]

You made a reference to "origin of the species" which is a reference to Darwin's book.

No. That's a reference to abiogenesis. Did Darwin write a book about abiogenesis by that title?

Evolution is biologic change in populations of organisms over generations. That has nothing to do with geology.

You need to learn a little about context. And, it might also help if you didn't insist on reading in "Darwinism" into every use of the word "evolution."

No, you are misunderstanding me. These primitive brains are the precursours to our brains. The starfish split off before this developmental structure emerged.

We were talking about starfish.

 

[Willtor]

No. That's a reference to abiogenesis. Did Darwin write a book about abiogenesis by that title?

As has been stated, it may look like a reference to abiogenesis at first glance, but it isn't. Note that the book was not called, "The Origins of Life," but species. Darwin was concerned with the diversity of life and considered the possibility that all life was related. But when discussing the origins of the species, it is not concerned with the origins of life.

 

[Melethiel]

Did Darwin write a book about abiogenesis by that title?

No, the Origin of Species is about just that - speciation. Species is not synonymous to "life".

 

[Poke]

As has been stated, it may look like a reference to abiogenesis at first glance, but it isn't. Note that the book was not called, "The Origins of Life," but species.

So, you hold to the multiple origins of life? Just out of curiosity, name two species that you don't think are at all related by any ancestry? Why?

Also, the book title implies it's about "the species" not "species." Is there some dispute going on here that I don't know about?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Also, the book title implies it's about "the species" not "species." Is there some dispute going on here that I don't know about?

The main title is On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or just The Origin of Species. It is frequently misstated as Origin of the Species.

 

[Redneck Crow]

So, you hold to the multiple origins of life? Just out of curiosity, name two species that you don't think are at all related by any ancestry? Why?

Also, the book title implies it's about "the species" not "species." Is there some dispute going on here that I don't know about?

Poke, could you be so kind to link us to where Willtor stated that he believed in multiple origins of life?

 

[steen]

So, you hold to the multiple origins of life? Just out of curiosity, name two species that you don't think are at all related by any ancestry? Why?

Nothing like this was implied in the preceeding post.

Also, the book title implies it's about "the species" not "species." Is there some dispute going on here that I don't know about?

Nope, no dispute.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Nothing like this was implied in the preceeding post.

I think so as well, but I would like to know if Poke read something somewhere else that I missed, because if I'm going to start a discussion with Willtor about common descent vs. multiple lines of descent, I would like to know that I am having that discussion with Willtor, and not one of these critters:

l
l
l
\/​

 

[Poke]

Poke, could you be so kind to link us to where Willtor stated that he believed in multiple origins of life?

If Willtor doesn't believe in multiple origins, he can answer and say so, and say that he didn't intend to suggest that he believes in muliple origins of life.

 

[gluadys]

If Willtor doesn't believe in multiple origins, he can answer and say so, and say that he didn't intend to suggest that he believes in muliple origins of life.

Actually, multiple origins of life is not inconsistent with common ancestry. Common ancestry means that all living species are related to each other and descended ultimately from one primitive population.

Way back billions of years ago, there may have been other living populations along side the last common ancestor, but if there were, all their lineages have gone extinct and they have left no descendants in our time.

In short, the last universal common ancestor was not necessarily the first or only species that lived in its era. But it is the only one to have living descendants.

Of course, I am not speaking for Wiltor.

Just pointing out that last universal common ancestor and first species are different concepts and don't have to refer to the same species.

 

[Redneck Crow]

If Willtor doesn't believe in multiple origins, he can answer and say so, and say that he didn't intend to suggest that he believes in muliple origins of life.

Poke, I haven't seen Willtor make even the faintest whiff of a suggestion that he does not believe that all lifeforms today descend from a common ancestor. That is why I asked you where you got your information from when you implied that he did. Because maybe you have seen something Willtor posted that I want to see as well.

I love to discuss theology and science with those who will discuss them. I have a lot of respect for Willtor. If he and I disagree on a point then I want to see why we disagree because there's a very good chance that he's right and I'm not. If he's right, I want to know what is right as well. Even if I conclude that Willtor is not right, I would like to see the evidence he based his belief upon. If the implication that Willtor does not believe that current life descended from a common ancestor is just a strawman, there's no point for me to bother Willtor. No one learns anything by pursuing a strawman.

 

[Poke]

Poke, I haven't seen Willtor make even the faintest whiff of a suggestion that he does not believe that all lifeforms today descend from a common ancestor.

Let me give you a hint, 's' added to the end of many words results in a plural.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Let me give you a hint, 's' added to the end of many words results in a plural.

Are you talking about the word species?

What do you think the singular form of the word species should be?

 

[steen]

Are you talking about the word species?

What do you think the singular form of the word species should be?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LewisWildermuth again.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Evolution doesn't account for the beginning of life. Evolution acts on life that already exists. If life was miraculously popped into existence, evolution began to work on it as it reproduced. If abiogenesis produced life, evolution began to work on it as it reproduced. Either way, evolution began working on life as it already existed.

If evolution took over once life started at what point does it take over for the recreation of life?

If evolution is not at the start of life, how did life begin scientifically speaking? Why doesn't evolution seek to find the origin of life?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Human life evolved like all other life, through the same mechanisms. The records come mainly from fossils, stone (and later) tools and genetic analysis.

Does evolution focus on fossils, stone (and later) tools and genetic analysis only? How does biology beyond genetics come into this?

 

[Redneck Crow]

If evolution took over once life started at what point does it take over for the recreation of life?

If evolution is not at the start of life, how did life begin scientifically speaking? Why doesn't evolution seek to find the origin of life?

Evolution merely addresses change in existing life. So the origin of life lies outside the field of evolution.

Most people who ascribe to the theory of evolution also are quite interested in knowing how life came to exist as well. And there isn't a whole lot to go on there.

Technically, whether one is YEC, OEC, or TE, we believe all believe that life began by abiogenesis. God either created biological life from non-life as a direct action or He created natural processes which brought about the creation of biological life from non-life. I say "technically" because the common usage of the term "abiogenesis" has a different meaning. It is the creation of life from non-life sans a creator. I also specify "biological" life as God created the angels, which are spiritual but not biological beings.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If evolution took over once life started at what point does it take over for the recreation of life?

What do you mean by recreation?

If evolution is not at the start of life, how did life begin scientifically speaking? Why doesn't evolution seek to find the origin of life?

There are several ideas about the start of life, but due to a lack of evidence, there is no set theory. Google aboigenesis and panspermia for some reading on some of these ideas.

Evolution, by definition, is only about the change in allele frequencies in life over time. Scientific theories cover very specific areas. ToE will not explain how your car runs, how stars form or how life starts because none of those things affect evolution. It does not matter how life started, as long as life reproduces imperfectly and these imperfections affect reproduction rates, evolution can occur.