Cosmic Evolution

[ObbiQuiet]

I thought it was nothing ---> rocks ---> chimps ----> humans? (in Hovind's factually incorrect, but endlessly humorous conception of evolution)

nothing ---> rocks ---> mud ---> chimps ---> mushrooms ---> chickens ---> humans

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, I was quoting Hovind. Do you consider the big bang theory to be part of evolution?

aah interesting. Jon, this is called obfuscation. Evolution has different meanings depending on where you apply it. Evolution can in some instances simply mean "change", so we can say a gas cloud evolves (changes) into a star, and this is a correct use of the term. the gas cloud does nothing more than collapse under it's own gravity. Now the naughty thing Hovind does is ignore the differences between that meaning and biological evolution, which has a much more specific meaning. Biological evolution is the change in species over time as a result of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success (sometimes referred to as natural selection). Now Generally speaking, when one refers to the "Theory of Evolution" they refer only to the biological part. Now the biological theory is limited. It explains how species change and makes predictions about the things we expect to find, but it is only applicable where there is already life. This means that the Theory of Evolution as it is assumes the existance of life and then talks about how it will change. It cannot explain how life originated, or how planets originated or for that matter how the cosmos works and how the universe originated - all of this is simply not within the remit of the "Theory of Evolution". So in this context no, the Big Bang is not part of evolution, because Evolution only addresses inherited changes within biology. It is however part of the standard model of physics.


hope that clears things up for you

 

[Bargainfluger]

nothing ---> rocks ---> mud ---> chimps ---> mushrooms ---> chickens ---> humans

No, no, no.


You left out the ham sandwich between chimps and mushrooms.

 

[Silent Bob]

I voted for other because evolution has nothing to do with cosmology and I dont believe in what science says: Nothing -> Rock -> Mud -> Chimps -> Ham sandwich -> Mushrooms -> Chickens -> Humans.

I believe Big Bang -> Hydrogen -> Galaxies -> Stars & Planets -> Life -> Dinosaurs -> Mammals -> Chimps -> Humans -> Meh + Magic mushrooms -> God.

Don't ask me why I believe that, I just do. But I want this theory to be taught in schools as science cause I made God and thus I am the greatest of all of you little apes. Bow to me! Muhahaha.

Now excuse me as I have to go take my meds. Its time for my green pill.

 

[h2whoa]

Its time for my green pill.

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

h2

 

[trunks2k]

It wouldn't... but it is possible that the big bang is nessary for the theory of evolution...?

Not really. Current evolution theory just needs an old earth and an original life form(s). How the earth and life got there is quite irrelevent to evolution.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

No because there's no such term as "cosmic evolution" except in a Hovind seminar.