Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good point. We all seem to have famous or notorious ancestry...By comparing the number of my ancestors back through time with the total population of Europe, I estimate that my most recent common ancestors with these two human beings were born no longer ago than 1200 AD.
View attachment 249751
If I have to admit to being related to Hitler and Himmler, then I have no reason to object to being descended from apes.
Technically, that's true. The problem is, defined that way, the term "creationist" would apply to any theist and would not be very useful. That is why in this forum, and pretty generally, the term "creationist" is reserved for a biblical creationist.
Sure we are. We just don't want to call abiogenesis "evolution." It's not an accurate usage.
Good point. Why not? I think all suggested principles of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis.
I'm not afraid of the origins problem, because I'm not afraid to say I don't know.
How? None of the presently considered possibilities--from direct intervention by God to any current scientific hypothesis involves evolution. In fact, no one knows exactly how it happened. How can you be so sure it involved the same processes which drive evolution?Good point. Why not? I think all suggested principles of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis.
Because at the present time it does not appear likely that evolution played any role in abiogenesis.So evolutionists do not know what to say about the role of evolution in abiogenesis.
How? None of the presently considered possibilities--from direct intervention by God to any current scientific hypothesis involves evolution. In fact, no one knows exactly how it happened. How can you be so sure it involved the same processes which drive evolution?
So randomly distributed heritable variation acted on by natural selection is nebulous? Sounds pretty concrete to me. The processes can be closely modeled mathematically. Is that nebulous?Because the principles of evolution is so nebulous that ANY process can use them.
So randomly distributed heritable variation acted on by natural selection is nebulous? Sounds pretty concrete to me. The processes can be closely modeled mathematically. Is that nebulous?
It's called an "organic chemical reaction" which happens all the time in nature and in the lab.Could this principle be also applied to an abiogeneic process? How do you describe the process that a smaller organic particle becomes a larger organic particle?
It depends on what you mean by "random." In the scientific sense of the term, no.Is it random?
If the entity survives in its environment then it has been "naturally selected," yes.Is it natural selection?
Not at the very beginning, no. There is no "heritable" without DNA.Is it a heritable variation?
Not at the very beginning, no. There is no "heritable" without DNA.
No DNA to pass on.
If scientists knew that then the problem of abiogenesis would be largely solved.
Because it didn't start in the "evolutional" process. It was always a separate discipline because nobody knew whether the principles of evolution applied to it or not. If they ever are shown to do so, then they will be used--although at this point it doesn't seem likely.Solved or not, why not use principles of evolution to study it? Why should it be rejected from the evolutional processes?
Because it didn't start in the "evolutional" process. It was always a separate discipline because nobody knew whether the principles of evolution applied to it or not. If they ever are shown to do so, then they will be used--although at this point it doesn't seem likely.
That makes no sense whatever. You're accusing biologists of not using an inappropriate paradigm to investigate abiogenesis as if it was some kind of cop-out. Do you really think the theory of evolution was ever supposed to be a theory of everything?I never see any evolutionist tried that. There must be a reason.
I think the reason is: When applied, it will fail. So.... better not touch it, simply claim: it does not belong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?