Can you explain this for me?

[pastorkevin73]

Regarding my OP could some of you explain how evolution got the neccessities correct for human life? I am not wanting to get into abiogenesis at this point. I would like to leave that out of this question (is this possible? Question out of ignorance). Thanks

 

[shernren]

If you're interested in a from-scratch explanation this might be a good place to start off:

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl34.htm

 

[Willtor]

Two more questions:

1) Are all, some or none TEs Darwinists?
2) Doesn't Darwin's theories include or stem from abiogenesis?

1. When you mentioned Darwinism, I thought you were talking about evolution, so I just sort of threw that in there. If you don't mean evolution, then I'm not quite sure what Darwinism means. If it's a primitive form of the current ToE, then I think it would be more accurate to say that TEs accept evolution as it has developed over the years. For example, Darwin didn't know anything about DNA. But DNA revolutionized the ToE and described a lot of things that were difficult to describe, prior.

2. I'm not aware of such a thing, but I'm not very well-read, yet. As I say, there are at least a few TEs on this board who think that abiogenesis is bunk. I'm not one of them, but they're around.

 

[azzy]

UMM,Excuse me fellas,,I created it all-GOD

 

[Willtor]

UMM,Excuse me fellas,,I created it all-GOD

I don't think anybody is disputing this in OT. It's fairly well established, here, that God created the world for His pleasure and glory. The question is not whether, but how? Is 6 days (as presented in the special revelation provided by God) intended in a literal sense, or is it intended in a figurative sense, or is it intended as a literal element of an allegorical passage, or something else, altogether?

We, of course, agree that Creation is a testimony to its Creator so the question is how to interpret that particular testament.

 

[pastorkevin73]

1. When you mentioned Darwinism, I thought you were talking about evolution, so I just sort of threw that in there. If you don't mean evolution, then I'm not quite sure what Darwinism means. If it's a primitive form of the current ToE, then I think it would be more accurate to say that TEs accept evolution as it has developed over the years. For example, Darwin didn't know anything about DNA. But DNA revolutionized the ToE and described a lot of things that were difficult to describe, prior.

2. I'm not aware of such a thing, but I'm not very well-read, yet. As I say, there are at least a few TEs on this board who think that abiogenesis is bunk. I'm not one of them, but they're around.

I do mean evolution. Since I have been on the boards there has been some information that has been give differing between TEs (I cannot give any specific example. I will see if I can find one or two). So I was wondering if all TEs agree with Darwin or if there is another ToE other than Darwinian.

 

[Dannager]

Most of us agree with the modern understanding of evolutionary theory, which is significantly changed from Darwin's original theory. I don't think it can rightly be referred to as Darwinism anymore.

Also, as far as I am aware there is no actual connection between evolutionary theory and the theory of abiogenesis. They operate independently of each other, so no - evolutionary theory, under the modern understanding, is not reliant or based on abiogenesis.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Most of us agree with the modern understanding of evolutionary theory, which is significantly changed from Darwin's original theory. I don't think it can rightly be referred to as Darwinism anymore.

Also, as far as I am aware there is no actual connection between evolutionary theory and the theory of abiogenesis. They operate independently of each other, so no - evolutionary theory, under the modern understanding, is not reliant or based on abiogenesis.

How does evolution account for the beginning of life? At what point did evolution begin to create life?

 

[Redneck Crow]

Two more questions:

1) Are all, some or none TEs Darwinists?
2) Doesn't Darwin's theories include or stem from abiogenesis?

pastorkevin73, if we could nail down what you mean when you say "Darwinism," we could answer your questions better.

Are you referring to natural selection, in which the living organisms which are most successful survive at a proportionately higher rate than the less successful and thereby have a greater genetic impact on future generations? I think that most TEs would accept Darwin's theory of natural selection. There is a great deal of evidence which indicates that this does indeed occur.

The theory of evolution only concerns the evolution of, or changes in, life which exists. It doesn't address how life came to exist.

Darwin seems to have favored abiogenesis as the means by which life was created. Here's a link to a site which makes that case.

Personally, I don't see clear evidence that abiogenesis occurred. Having said that, I believe that God is fully capable of creating a natural system which would ultimately result in abiogenesis for the purpose of creating life. Whether He chose to use this means or not is unknowable at this time.

 

[gluadys]

In regards to abiogenesis... We must always remember the theist in theistic evolutionist...

I think God started it all as does everyone else posting in this section...

And that includes God starting life by the process of abiogenesis. Many theists don't have a problem with abiogenesis as a concept. All that is being waited on is a good scientific model of abiogenesis. Then we can say: Isn't it amazing what God did, to make chemistry yield life like that?

 

[gluadys]

Two more questions:

1) Are all, some or none TEs Darwinists?

All TEs accept the scientific theory of evolution as the best current explanation of the origin of species. This includes accepting Darwin's thesis of natural selection.

"Darwinist" however, is a term often applied to those who accept philosophies of naturalism as well as the science of evolution. In this sense, no, TEs are not Darwinists.

2) Doesn't Darwin's theories include or stem from abiogenesis?

No. Neither currently nor historically. Darwin never theorized about the origin of life, and in Origin of Species he credited the earliest forms of life to God.

 

[gluadys]

How does evolution account for the beginning of life? At what point did evolution begin to create life?

It doesn't. It only says that once life exists--however that came to be--it evolves.

 

[Assyrian]

I think Christians sometimes approach evolution from the wrong direction. They see Christianity and evolution as the clash of two philosophies, and as a philosophy they think evolution should be able to able to give a rigorous explanation everything from the origin of the universe and the origin of life as well as the development of species. So you get people in discussions who include the Big Bang and abiogensis under the heading of evolution.

However evolution approaches its subject from a completely different direction. Think of the evolutionary biologist as a Crime Scene Investigator rather than a philosopher. Evolution looks at the evidence we have now, the similarities between species, their DNA, the fossil record we have as well as their radiometric dates. It works back from what we have now, to what was there in the past.

A CSI will be able to show what gun was used in the shooting, where it was bought and by whom, and who manufactured it, without having to trace the origin of gunpowder and prove it was invented by the Chinese. In the same way evolution traces the species we have today back to earlier and earlier species from the evidence we have now, without have into show how life originated or where the universe came from. They know that life exists now, as does the universe, all they need to show is where it has been before.

 

[Willtor]

How does evolution account for the beginning of life? At what point did evolution begin to create life?

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.

 

[steen]

I don't believe the original poster had in mind Darwinism, but the broader evolutionism. In this case, the origin of the species.

Hmm, "Darwinism" would be the original Scientific Hypothesis set up by Darwin. That included his book "On the origin of Species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

That book is NOT on the origins of life. Since you refer to it, I had hoped that you had read it and known this, but at least now you have a link and can go see for yourself.Here is an extracted quote from the end of the introduction:
...Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. ..

You can have this point. Now, when I refute one of your statements, I'll expect an admission of such, just to be fair.

Of course. Anything else would be dishonest. It is all about the evidence.

Isn't this thread about where hearts, lungs, and brains come from? The original poster of this thread is asking from where these "essential organs" came from.

Well, that was really a sub-question to what Evolution showed about the origin of life (namely nothing, as this is not part of evolution any more than the properties of light are part of the Scientific Theory of Plate Tectonics.

Now, we could go into technical details on the scientific evidence, but that would somewhat detract from the original issue in this tread. And such a discussion really would be more appropriate in the C&E forum which specifically deal with minutia of evidence rather than origins

But if you insist, we can certainly do it here

Let's talk about that starfish. A starfish has a complex nervous system that functions as a non-centralized brain.

Actually, as nervous systems go, it is rather unsophisticated. And "non-centralized brain"? I guess you can say that the movements of each arm is run by its own set of nerves and guided by its own eye-spot to some extend. I'll give you that, partially.

Where did this brain come from, such as which pre-starfish species?

Well, initially the rudimentary brain came from the first notocord species, ie. the chordates, such as the Lancelet and Lamprey species.

Now, the starfish diverged before the notocord developed. The taxonomic relationship can be seen here:
http://www.tolweb.org/Deuterostomia/2466

Also, would you say that a starfish brain an an ancestor of the human brain?

No, it is a remote cousin. Now there really isn't a starfish "brain" as such.

Do you know of any starfish-like species that evolved from starfish and that are in the human lineage? Or, do you think the starfish brain is a different branch and has nothing to do with the origin of the human brain?

Yes, See the phylogeny at the above link

 

[steen]

Two more questions:

1) Are all, some or none TEs Darwinists?

Darwinist" is really not a good term. It is like claiming that those who build the space shuttle are "Orville and Wilbur Wrightists." Darwin's hypothesis is the idea that got it all started, but the current knowledge is embodied in the Scientific Theory of Evolution. I am not intimately aware with TE professing any other views of how populations change over time.

2) Doesn't Darwin's theories include or stem from abiogenesis?

No, while Darwin had some vague musings and speculations, his hypothesis was about how to explain the diversity and changes in species with an apparent pattern of similarities.

 

[steen]

Regarding my OP could some of you explain how evolution got the neccessities correct for human life?

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

 

[steen]

How does evolution account for the beginning of life?

It doesn't. It is a different field of science entirely. It Evolution is in the filed of biology. Abiogenesis is a but of an orphan, but generally is in the field of Chemistry.

At what point did evolution begin to create life?

It didn't. Evolution didn't begin until life was already present.

 

[Poke]

That book is NOT on the origins of life. Since you refer to it, I had hoped that you had read it and known this,

I made no reference to any book.

Well, that was really a sub-question to what Evolution showed about the origin of life (namely nothing, as this is not part of evolution any more than the properties of light are part of the Scientific Theory of Plate Tectonics.

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

Well, initially the rudimentary brain came from the first notocord species, ie. the chordates, such as the Lancelet and Lamprey species.

So, you speculate that the starfish brain, such as they are, might have evolved from the more centralized brains of the lamprey or lancelet? Isn't that backwards?

Now, the starfish diverged before the notocord developed.

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

No, it is a remote cousin.

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?

 

[Redneck Crow]

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

The continents are not living organisms. You still do not get it. Something must be a living organism to evolve. A continent cannot evolve because it is isn't alive. A rock cannot evolve because it cannot pass on it's genes. Petrified wood cannot evolve.

So, you speculate that the starfish brain, such as they are, might have evolved from the more centralized brains of the lamprey or lancelet? Isn't that backwards?

Yes, it's backwards, and he didn't say that. Starfish are among the creatures which do not have brains. Yup, they're brainless. They didn't lose their brains, they never had them in the first place.

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

He didn't. Starfish diverged before notocord species. Ergo, starfish never developed brains.

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?

Yup, he did. Succinctly.