Evolution=Atheism

[The Son of Him]

And once more: that is not what is happening! Instead, what is being looked for is a means of quantizing gravity. QM will cover all the forces in the universe except gravity. Gravity is not quantized. It is continuous instead of coming in discrete bundles -- quanta. So, at singularities all theories that depend on continuous gravity -- Relativity -- break down.

Come on Lucaspa, we both know that.
And you know what I am trying to say.

However I am NOT argueing that both aboigenesis and evolution follow the same principles, that is NOT what I am saying.

My problem comes about from the fact that evolution deals with living organisms that come from previous "evolved" organisms and as LOUI PASTEUR proposed every living organism comes from something alive. (not out of thin air)

We trace back the evolutionary chain and Where does it start ???
Or where did this first living organism come from ,capable of mutation ??
Or where is the transition from inanimate matter to living organism ???

Where does evolution start ?? Or how we jump from inanimate matter to an organism "capable" of mutation ???

And why everybody gets so sensitive about that??

 

[ProbePhage]

I don't know whether this was already said or not because I only read the first page.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate theories. Evolution (and some direct offshoots) deal with the way populations change over time and the way new species are formed. Abiogenesis deals with how life may have originated from nonlife without divine intervention.

They are not inextricably linked. It is logically possible for one to be true and not the other. For instace, a deity may have created life initially, but then let that life evolve into what it is today. Another logical possibility (although much less likely and accepted by almost no one today, but it was once somewhat accepted and called "spontaneous generation") is that life does not evolve, but all forms of life on Earth were somehow non-supernaturally created from nonlife.

 

[The Son of Him]

Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate theories. Evolution (and some direct offshoots) deal with the way populations change over time and the way new species are formed. Abiogenesis deals with how life may have originated from nonlife without divine intervention.

They are not inextricably linked. It is logically possible for one to be true and not the other. For instace, a deity may have created life initially, but then let that life evolve into what it is today. Another logical possibility (although much less likely and accepted by almost no one today, but it was once somewhat accepted and called "spontaneous generation") is that life does not evolve, but all forms of life on Earth were somehow non-supernaturally created from nonlife.

All these is clear. If you read the original thread my objection is more to those atheists who do not want to discuss abiogenesis, because evolution only is applicable to "living organisms".
But that is the questions wich is the first living organism ??
How do you define that??
Or to put it simply where did evolution start ??(And how we arrive to that point from previous steps ?)
But for that we would have to define what "life" is. That is where I am aiming.

 

[Tomk80]

All these is clear. If you read the original thread my objection is more to those atheists who do not want to discuss abiogenesis, because evolution only is applicable to "living organisms".
But that is the questions wich is the first living organism ??
How do you define that??
Or to put it simply where did evolution start ??(And how we arrive to that point from previous steps ?)
But for that we would have to define what "life" is. That is where I am aiming.

The problem here is not that the 'atheists' do not want to discuss abiogenesis. I also don't think that they do not see the problem inherent in the question when we stop speaking about chemistry and start talking about 'life'.
You have to see our (or at least my) (un-)willingness to engage in this discussion in view of the total discussion at hand. I am willing to discuss what 'life' is, I'm willing to discuss abiogenesis in that sense and I'm willing to discuss evolution. However, I'm not willing to discuss a strawman version of evolution which wants to insist that disproving current abiogenesis theories disproves evolution theory. Evolution necessarily discusses only things which are 'living', or at least derived from the living (virsusses). Exactly where this 'life' begins or what it is precisely is not discussed in evolution theory, because this exceeds its boundaries. Between the 'end of' abiogenesis and the 'start of' evolution, there is necessarily some sort of gray area. However, the starting premises are very different, chemistry for abiogenesis, mutation and natural selection for evolution.
The problem I see in combining the two in one 'grand theory of life' is that you make the theory (unnecessarily) complicated. The deviding line between abiogenesis and evolution is arbitrary or non-defined, but necessary to make insightfull discussion possible.

 

[Valkhorn]

All these is clear. If you read the original thread my objection is more to those atheists who do not want to discuss abiogenesis, because evolution only is applicable to "living organisms".
But that is the questions wich is the first living organism ??
How do you define that??
Or to put it simply where did evolution start ??(And how we arrive to that point from previous steps ?)
But for that we would have to define what "life" is. That is where I am aiming.

What you're referring to is simply spanning two separate fields of research - Evolution, and Abiogenesis.

Evolution only covers what happens to living organisms. It does not simply tell us what specific organism was first, although it does point to a general direction of one-celled organism.

Evolution ONLY deals with living organisms. It does not try to define life, and it does not try to define what is alive.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is the field devoted to the transformation of non-life to life.

A good metaphor for what we're trying to tell you is that Abiogenesis and Evolution may be sub-branches of Biology and/or Chemistry, but they do not overlap in any way, shape, matter, or form.

It's much the same way in which Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics generally don't overlap. Of course I'm no physicist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Another example would be Climate and Weather. Weather defines the conditions that are happening now. Climate is the atmospheric averages and conditions over a long period of time. Even if those two overlapped a little, it's not by very much.

There are many fields which do not overlap, but are in the same general area of science. It's best not to just lump everything together if you cannot understand it.

 

[The Son of Him]

Evolution ONLY deals with living organisms. It does not try to define life, and it does not try to define what is alive.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is the field devoted to the transformation of non-life to life.

.

Evolution only deals with living organisms. O.K. I get that.

But don't you think is only logical that the next question is which one was the first living organism ??

And what we define by living organism so at least we know what are we applying evolution to ?????
Because it gets really fussy when we trace back evolutionary steps .

And about the lack of overlapping, I am not so convinced about it really...

What about that first living organism ,Does evolution apply to it ??

Apparently yes at least half way because it did not evolve from no previous organism, it spawn from abiogenesis processes. But it contained the capacity to mutate therefore abiogenesis and evolution applied to it.

So the first "living" organism woulh have been an example of overlapping of both theories.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Evolution only deals with living organisms. O.K. I get that.

But don't you think is only logical that the next question is which one was the first living organism ??

It is, that's why there are theories on abiogenesis and theistic creation (and others). Evolution (as has already been stated) doesn't attempt to cover that question.

 

[The Son of Him]

It is, that's why there are theories on abiogenesis and theistic creation (and others). Evolution (as has already been stated) doesn't attempt to cover that question.

You are still not answering the question.

Abiogenesis is one thing, evolution is another ,crystal clear (Let me tell you that I already knew that but everybody is so busy lecturing that they do not pay attention to the question )

What did the first organism "evolved" from (since evolution theory can be applied to all living organisms ) ??

Do we need to define what "living organism is" ???

So, we have inanimate material and thru random combinations a living organism comes about and with capacity to mutate and (randomly) thru time this mutations combined with natural selection here we are.

I do not buy it. It is full of ramdomly things that it feels more based on faith than religion itself.

It will be easier for me to agree with it if somebody were to propose a sort of "natural selection" among chemical processes in the original soup to bring about the first living organisms.

But to propose that life was brought about "just because" or by "accident" ,seem so anti-science that I might as well listen to hard core creacionists.

If the line is so clear to you between the two theories I would like to know
how was the transition between inanimate random chemical processes to living mutating organisms (you claim there is no gradual one) just a jump from one to the other.
And how would you classify the first living organism as abiogenesis product or evolution product ???

 

[Magnus Vile]

I don't know how the first life form came about. I may never know, but that isn't a problem for my acceptance of evolution. If I were to guess I'd say that there was a period where the earliest things that reproduced would be impossible to describe as 'life' in any but the loosest terms. So the earliest 'life' might have been a slightly more complex chemical reaction. The first thing that could reproduce may have been produced by abiogenesis, or by a divine being. I can't tell, though I lean toward the first through personal bias, and as far as evolution goes it really doesn't matter.

The first life, whatever it may have been, that could reproduce with errors would be the first life that evolution addresses. The reason that everyone seems to resist the idea that they are linked is because we know evolution works. Abiogenesis is another matter entirely, no one knows how that happened, (though there are many ideas as how it may have happened). Even if we work out a method by which life can arrive from nothing more than chemical reactions we won't know if that was the way it happened here.

 

[Jet Black]

So the earliest 'life' might have been a slightly more complex chemical reaction.

the definition of "life" is slightly vague, though it does include things such as respiration and metabolism. It is difficult to say whether the things you suggest would be life, since they do not control their own internal environment.

The first life, whatever it may have been, that could reproduce with errors would be the first life that evolution addresses.

it is the fact that life is not a perfect replicator that means evolution can evolve! something that copies perfectly can never achieve variation.

 

[Magnus Vile]

the definition of "life" is slightly vague, though it does include things such as respiration and metabolism. It is difficult to say whether the things you suggest would be life, since they do not control their own internal environment.

I know, but that leaves Viri in a rather grey area as far as being alive. They do evolve though. Maybe we should look at primitive forms of viri for an example of 'first life'? I have no idea if this is being done, but it might be fun.

As far as defining life, Richard Dawkins went for "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." which might serve.

it is the fact that life is not a perfect replicator that means evolution can evolve! something that copies perfectly can never achieve variation.

That's about where I was going with that.

 

[Ysaeda]

Evolution is beleiving that we came from fish or monkies, and athiest is when u dont beleive in anything.

 

[Ysaeda]

oi....

 

[Praxiteles]

Wha?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Wha?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Evolution is beleiving that we came from fish or monkies,

Well there's a bit more to it than that, but OK. Actually evolution, (biological) evolution is the study of (usually subtle) cumulative changes in the morphology, physiology and genetic composition of reproductive populations of organisms over successive generations; which often results in increased biodiversity when continued variation in genetic isolation leads to a divergence of two or more distinct descendant branches from one ancestral population. Evolution Theory is the study of the observed facts of speciation and the ability of various selective pressures to increase biodiversity as described above. But when creationists talk about evolution, they usually mean the associated concept of common ancestry, which essentially means the realization that we are still vertebrate craniates because we are descended from fish, and we are still eutherian Catarrhine primates because we are descended from monkeys.

and athiest is when u dont beleive in anything.

Actually no, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. Buddhists, Shaman, Druids, Taoists and Jedi are examples of atheists who maintain spiritual beliefs. Those are usally called pantheists. That was my former religion after converting from Christianity. I was a spiritual pantheist for at least 15 years, and I was sorry to have to let that go.

Now a materialist, or material atheist, (which is what I am now) is someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural, meaning those things we can't quantify or qualify or evidence in any way. You know, those things we have no actual reason to suspect exist and believe only on faith. Materialists don't have faith and don't believe anything that is not based on evidence or reason. But even material atheists are usually humanists also, and humanitarian as well, meaning they can have all the higher morals of any religious person.

What you're thinking of is a nihilist. Thoes are the dudes who don't believe in anything, including themselves.

 

[Logic]

Evolution is beleiving that we came from fish or monkies, and athiest is when u dont beleive in anything.

Yes, those evolutionist rapscallion commies have narrowed down our origins to either a) fish or b) monkeys

 

[Mistermystery]

Wha?

Say "what" again. SAY "WHAT" AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, moth******er. Say "what" one more damn time.

.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Wha?

 

[Mistermystery]

Wha?

*shoots you through your shoulder*

.